Constitutional Amendment to prohibit gay marraige

Ry
Posts: 36
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Constitutional Amendment to prohibit gay marraige

On Wednesday, March 1st, 2006, in Annapolis at a hearing on the proposed Constitutional Amendment to prohibit gay marriage, Jamie Raskin, professor of law at AU, was requested to testify.

At the end of his testimony, Republican Senator Nancy Jacobs said: "Mr. Raskin, my Bible says marriage is only between a man and a woman. What do you have to say about that?"

Raskin replied: "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."

The room erupted into applause.

Warning, religiousity increases the risk of religious terrorism.

www.anti-neocons.com or www.Rys2sense.com


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Constitutional Amendment to prohibit gay marraige

Very cool. However when you swear to uphold the Constitution with your hand on a book full of lies does that not permit a certain degree of lying while fulfilling the duties you swore to uphold? Eye-wink

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Constitutional Amendment to prohibit gay marraige

Sapient wrote:
Very cool. However when you swear to uphold the Constitution with your hand on a book full of lies does that not permit a certain degree of lying while fulfilling the duties you swore to uphold? Eye-wink

Good point, which is exactly why politicians aren't exactly righteous are they? The irony of all this is that when you go to court and you have to raise your right hand and "Swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god" why is it that if we are all so morally bounded to this god that we have to have lawyers? lol.... :roll: aye aye aye,

well at least we all know that the bible and god are just say so make ya feel better kinda crap, no one REALLY abides by them in our system, it looks good on paper I guess.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


n8
Posts: 13
Joined: 2006-04-04
User is offlineOffline
Constitutional Amendment to prohibit gay marraige

i never got why people get sworn in on bibles, where's the separation of church and state.

and why bibles why not a book of american history or something like that.

Fucking with the rich is not only necessary, it's also a hell of a lot of fun.
-Jello Biafra, Dead Kennedys

"GOD is dead"
Friedrich Nietzsche

religious wars are like argueing over who's imaginary friend is better.
richard jeni


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Constitutional Amendment to prohibit gay marraige

Sapient wrote:
Very cool. However when you swear to uphold the Constitution with your hand on a book full of lies does that not permit a certain degree of lying while fulfilling the duties you swore to uphold? Eye-wink

that, my friend, is the irony...which as you've seen in politics...is a prophecy..shall we say, fulfilled?

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Constitutional Amendment to prohibit gay marraige

Good point. If you don't believe in the bible, it's no more relevant than placing your hand on MAD magazine. And there's nothing in the Constitution about placing your hand on the Babble, either! It's another of those things (like the pledge and "In God we trust"Eye-wink, that seems to hint that non-christians are 2nd class citizens.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


natto_the_sane
Posts: 30
Joined: 2006-04-20
User is offlineOffline
Constitutional Amendment to prohibit gay marraige

...I think in the UK we can choose another holy book to swear on instead of the bible... wouldn't do me much good...

In the last census I put my religeon down as Jedi - we're trying to get May 4th as a new bank holiday. If enough people did it, it will also be one of the options on the next form in about 8 years time. .. Laughing out loud

NSane

Lock up your libraries if you like; but there is no gate, no lock, no bolt that you can set upon the freedom of my mind. ~ Virginia Woolf 1928.


Balone
Posts: 33
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Why not swear on an American History book

Because then they would be swearing on a book of lies.

 

Who says the Bible is full of lies, you. Who are you? Can you prove they are lies? Just as I do not have physical evidence that there is a God, you do not have physical evidence there is not. 

 

George Washington

Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion, and Morality are indispensable supports.—In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens.—The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them.—A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity.—Let it simply be asked where is security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion.—Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure.—reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.—

 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Do you guys have a theist

Do you guys have a theist tag ready?


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Balone wrote:Because then

Balone wrote:

Because then they would be swearing on a book of lies.

 

Who says the Bible is full of lies, you. Who are you? Can you prove they are lies? Just as I do not have physical evidence that there is a God, you do not have physical evidence there is not. 

 

George Washington

Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion, and Morality are indispensable supports.—In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens.—The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them.—A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity.—Let it simply be asked where is security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion.—Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure.—reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.—

 

 

When the people who wrote can't get their stories straight and contradict themselves...

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
Balone wrote:Who says the

Balone wrote:

Who says the Bible is full of lies, you. Who are you? Can you prove they are lies? Just as I do not have physical evidence that there is a God, you do not have physical evidence there is not. 

Go check out the Biblical Errancy forum if you want to see places where the bible lies through contradiction.

Now, next question: how exactly do you propose to get evidence for something that doesn't exist?  How could you?  If it doesn't exist, it can't leave footprints, appear in photographs, distort the path of light or alter the orbit of something.  If it doesn't exist, it's not there to create physical evidence.

If you believe in a  god, it's up to you to prove your belief has some basis in reality.  Otherwise it's no different than believing in Jedis.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

 

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
LeftofLarry wrote:Sapient

LeftofLarry wrote:
Sapient wrote:
Very cool. However when you swear to uphold the Constitution with your hand on a book full of lies does that not permit a certain degree of lying while fulfilling the duties you swore to uphold? Eye-wink
Good point, which is exactly why politicians aren't exactly righteous are they? The irony of all this is that when you go to court and you have to raise your right hand and "Swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god" why is it that if we are all so morally bounded to this god that we have to have lawyers? lol.... :roll: aye aye aye, well at least we all know that the bible and god are just say so make ya feel better kinda crap, no one REALLY abides by them in our system, it looks good on paper I guess.

Actually, you can also raise your right hand and 'affirm' that your testimony will be 'the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth', without invocation of a higher power. The idea is not that the court holds God to be binding, but that the court wants the witness to swear an oath the witness feels is binding.

Same thing with politicians. The government feels the oath itself is the binding agent. The symbolism is optional, and chosen by the oath taker, to represent what they feel is binding upon them. As such, no matter how flawed their symbolism may seem, I can't find fault with the concept: providing a mental reinforcement of the seriousness of the oath.

Sadly, so many of them don't truly find anything to be binding upon them.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Balone wrote:Because then

Balone wrote:

Because then they would be swearing on a book of lies.

 

Who says the Bible is full of lies, you. Who are you? Can you prove they are lies? Just as I do not have physical evidence that there is a God, you do not have physical evidence there is not.

Well, here's your options:

A)The Bible is literally 100% true.

B)The Bible lies.

Fiction is a lie. It's not necessarily a malevolent lie, it's not necessarily 'bearing false witness against thy neighbor' (which was a proscription against, you know, making or supporting false accusations against your neighbor, not 'no, I didn't eat the last cookie!'), but it's a knowing and intentional untruth, which is a lie.

So:

Adam and Eve have 3 kids. Son 1 kills Son 2 and leaves. Son 3 gets married.

Where did Seth's wife come from?

Adam, Eve, Caine, and Seth are the only living humans, according to the Bible. And then a wife pops up.

So: Is the Bible lying that those 4 are the only humans? Is it lying that Seth found a wife? Did Seth marry a bonobo?

Is it literal truth, or an allegorical fiction?

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Balone wrote:Because then

Balone wrote:

Because then they would be swearing on a book of lies.

 

Who says the Bible is full of lies, you. Who are you? Can you prove they are lies? Just as I do not have physical evidence that there is a God, you do not have physical evidence there is not.  

Perhaps lies is the wrong word. How about misrepresentation, misperception, misconstrued reality, perversion of history, Sci-Fi, Fantasy, Horror, delusional, an abomination, malevolent, degenerate, wicked, vicious, immoral, diabolical, or simply evil.

Bibles should be  required to have a warning label on the cover informing the reader it contains, violence, murder, perverse sex, unsubstantiated claims of relevancy and should only be read by someone 18 or older with a stable personality. Further it should read "Warning- The reader is hereby warned the following material has been shown to cause property destruction, violence, murder, war, pogroms, and ethnic cleansing. It is not unknown for readers to subject themselves or others to harm including their own children. Please exercise care in use around children as instability of mothers has been reported where children are murdered to save them from perceived possession by Satan and other mythical entities."

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Well, here's your

Quote:

Well, here's your options:

A)The Bible is literally 100% true.

B)The Bible lies.

This is one crazy dichotomy.  Does this dichotomy apply to all statements? Just ones made in books? Or just to the bible?

 


Balone
Posts: 33
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
censorship

If that is the case then all books, video games, movies, organizations, governments, etc. Should have the same labels.

And it is Mythical in your eyes not everybodies. Stop labeling I could do the exact same. Stating Mythical is antagonistic. That is like me stating not believing in God is Mythical. Whatever labels you want to give theists or their beliefs I can turn around and state the same thing about yours.

 

George Washigton's farewell address:

Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion, and Morality are indispensable supports.—In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens.—The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them.—A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity.—Let it simply be asked where is security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion.—Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure.—reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.—

 


Balone
Posts: 33
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Evidence

Now, next question: how exactly do you propose to get evidence for something that doesn't exist?  How could you?  If it doesn't exist, it can't leave footprints, appear in photographs, distort the path of light or alter the orbit of something.  If it doesn't exist, it's not there to create physical evidence.

 

So you have no evidence....that is what I thought.

And science would have me believe DARK MATTER exists even though it is missing the same things as proof as the ones missing from the existence of God.

 

George Washington:

Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion, and Morality are indispensable supports.—In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens.—The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them.—A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity.—Let it simply be asked where is security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion.—Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure.—reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.—

 


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

Quote:

Well, here's your options:

A)The Bible is literally 100% true.

B)The Bible lies.

This is one crazy dichotomy.  Does this dichotomy apply to all statements? Just ones made in books? Or just to the bible?

Well, technically, there's C)The Bible contains numerous errors, but no-one ever knowingly asserted those errors were true, but IF the Bible contains errors, at some point, someone wrote it, or came up with the stories, so they would know they weren't right.

But basically, yeah. 100% true, contains lies, or contains honest mistakes is pretty much applicable to all statements.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


Balone
Posts: 33
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
I do not believe you know

I do not believe you know the definitions of the words as you use them in tandem so here you go

Contradiction:

1.the act of contradicting; gainsaying or opposition.
2.assertion of the contrary or opposite; denial.
3.a statement or proposition that contradicts or denies another or itself and is logically incongruous.
4.direct opposition between things compared; inconsistency.
5.a contradictory act, fact, etc.

Lie

1.a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2.something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3.an inaccurate or false statement.
4.the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.
–verb (used without object)
5.to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
6.to express what is false; convey a false impression.
–verb (used with object)
7.to bring about or affect by lying (often used reflexively): to lie oneself out of a difficulty; accustomed to lying his way out of difficulties.

Fiction

1.the class of literature comprising works of imaginative narration, esp. in prose form.
2.works of this class, as novels or short stories: detective fiction.
3.something feigned, invented, or imagined; a made-up story: We've all heard the fiction of her being in delicate health.
4.the act of feigning, inventing, or imagining.
5.an imaginary thing or event, postulated for the purposes of argument or explanation.
6.Law. an allegation that a fact exists that is known not to exist, made by authority of law to bring a case within the operation of a rule of law.

 


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Balone wrote:If that is the

Balone wrote:

If that is the case then all books, video games, movies, organizations, governments, etc. Should have the same labels.

And it is Mythical in your eyes not everybodies. Stop labeling I could do the exact same. Stating Mythical is antagonistic. That is like me stating not believing in God is Mythical. Whatever labels you want to give theists or their beliefs I can turn around and state the same thing about yours.

Go for it. Tell me my beliefs are mythical. Lemme spell 'em out for you:

1)I know that I exist in some form, because something must exist to question my existence.

2)I don't know anything beyond that, because I can't conclusively prove that all of my awareness of reality isn't a lie fed to my mind by my senses, or a massive delusion conjured up within my mind.

Now, be prepared for Paisley to jump in here with both feet screaming "AH-HA! YOU BELIEVE SOMETHING!", despite the fact that we've gone around and around many times over 1 being a foundational axiomatic fact, and thus superceding belief, and 2 being an admission of ignorance, and not a claim or assertion of knowledge (ie: a belief).

But please, do demonstrate how you can label that as 'mythical'.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Balone wrote:Now, next

Balone wrote:

Now, next question: how exactly do you propose to get evidence for something that doesn't exist?  How could you?  If it doesn't exist, it can't leave footprints, appear in photographs, distort the path of light or alter the orbit of something.  If it doesn't exist, it's not there to create physical evidence.

 

So you have no evidence....that is what I thought.

 

Tell you what, even if there is a super intelligent being in our Universe with the attributes you describe he could very well be an alien intelligence from an advanced society. Prove me wrong, you go first.

Everything you claim that you say is God, I will come back with, see that proves he is an alien intelligence with knowledge of the Universe far beyond our current understanding. Anything you put forward I can refute with, see it's the alien entity you don't understand. I can no more prove that entity than you can prove your God is as described by the ancients of the Mid East. Since you claim your god of volcanoes and thunder Yahweh transcended to the all powerful God of Christianity you prove he exists in reality not as part of delusional misconception. You of course go first.

Please fill in the blank.

God is real because of  this measurable irrefutable evidence_________________________________.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Balone wrote:I do not

Balone wrote:

I do not believe you know the definitions of the words as you use them in tandem so here you go

Indeedy! Here, lemme pick 'em out for you!

Quote:

Lie

1.a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

Fiction

3.something feigned, invented, or imagined; a made-up story: We've all heard the fiction of her being in delicate health.
5.an imaginary thing or event, postulated for the purposes of argument or explanation.

Any imaginary thing or event, any imagined, invented, or made-up story... is an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

As I said, it need not be malevolent. It need not be a BAD THING. But it's a lie.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Well, technically,

Quote:
Well, technically, there's C)The Bible contains numerous errors, but no-one ever knowingly asserted those errors were true, but IF the Bible contains errors, at some point, someone wrote it, or came up with the stories, so they would know they weren't right.

Does the bible proclaim its own inerrancy? Or is this just a thing followers assert?

Just curious... seriously don't know.. I assumed it didn't

Quote:
But basically, yeah. 100% true, contains lies, or contains honest mistakes is pretty much applicable to all statements.


Well ya.. this I can agree with. The "or contains honest mistakes" is an important part to the issue, IMO.


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

Quote:
Well, technically, there's C)The Bible contains numerous errors, but no-one ever knowingly asserted those errors were true, but IF the Bible contains errors, at some point, someone wrote it, or came up with the stories, so they would know they weren't right.

Does the bible proclaim its own inerrancy? Or is this just a thing followers assert?

Just curious... seriously don't know.. I assumed it didn't

Quote:
But basically, yeah. 100% true, contains lies, or contains honest mistakes is pretty much applicable to all statements.


Well ya.. this I can agree with. The "or contains honest mistakes" is an important part to the issue, IMO.

Well, the Bible doesn't explicitly state 'This is the Bible, it is the inerrant Word of God', but at the same time, The Bible as such didn't exist at all until the ecumenical councils of the early Christian church. The individual writings in it, however, have been taken to be the inerrant Word of God, and such belief had to have an origin somewhere. So the initial assertion, whenever it was made, still holds as binding. In fact, given that 'The Bible' still technically doesn't exist (there are many different versions, using different translations of different source material), it can be argued that the assertion of the believer is the relevant issue.

Edit to add: Keep in mind, the authors of the tales, when originally composing them (likely in an oral tradition), would have known whether they were composing fiction or not, which, as demonstrated above, is still a lie, though not any indication of malevolence.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Balone wrote:If that is the

Balone wrote:

If that is the case then all books, video games, movies, organizations, governments, etc. Should have the same labels.

 Stop labeling I could do the exact same.

You stop your religious fanatics from doing so first then I will.

Balone wrote:

Stating Mythical is antagonistic. That is like me stating not believing in God is Mythical. Whatever labels you want to give theists or their beliefs I can turn around and state the same thing about yours.

You can but it'll just sound weird.

For example. I say Jesus was not real. You say, that's just mythical.

I say, the snake in the garden didn't talk. You say, it's mythical to say the snake didn't talk.

Simply saying belief in god is mythical is antagonistic to you? Touchy aren't you. Why come to an atheist forum then? You are going to get far worse than that here.

 

 

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Balone
Posts: 33
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Mythical

Mythical

1.pertaining to, of the nature of, or involving a myth.
2.dealt with in myth, as a prehistoric period.
3.dealing with myths, as writing.
4.existing only in myth, as a person.
5.without foundation in fact; imaginary; fictitious: The explanation was entirely mythical.

It would be mythical to not believe in a God.

It is a matter of perspective.

 


mrjonno
Posts: 726
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Well I'm British and I've

Well I'm British and I've been a witness (and the victim) of a serious assault which was tried in Canada. I said and I wasnt prepared to swear on a bible and I they said I could swear on the Canadian constitution or something. Ended up with a bible anyway and been young and lazy I couldnt be arsed to argue.

 

But a far more ethical question, if you were on trial for a serious crime in a  religious country (ie America) would you refuse to swear on the bible even through it was highly likely to not look good to the jury. Being a pastafarian required to have loose moral values at all times it wouldnt be an issue for me but for you non-believers in the supernatural what would you do?

 

 


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:it can be argued that

Quote:
it can be argued that the assertion of the believer is the relevant issue.

I would probably argue that Smiling

Quote:
Edit to add: Keep in mind, the authors of the tales, when originally composing them (likely in an oral tradition), would have known whether they were composing fiction or not, which, as demonstrated above, is still a lie, though not any indication of malevolence.

Depends on how they were created IMO.  For instance, if a person see's lightening, calls it "god lightening"--meaning, to him, that god's only attribute is seen in lightening.  Tells his son, that is "god lightening."  That son calls it "zeus," just for the sake of shorting the name.  Tells his son, "that is zues."  That son connects certain practices he does with the the arrival of lightening, i.e., an honest mistake that correlation equals causation; says "if I sacrifice, zues won't send lightening."  The last assertion wouldn't be a lie IMO--nor any of them.

If all mythology was created in such a piecemeal way.. it's possible that no one really knew that they were composing fiction or not.


Balone
Posts: 33
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Wait wait wait

You stop your religious fanatics from doing so first then I will.

That would be like me saying you stop your communist regimes and I will stop.

 

You are going to get far worse than that here.

Are you stating that you and your friends are lacking in morals?


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Here we go with another

Here we go with another idiot linking atheism to communism.


Balone
Posts: 33
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
linking me to fanatics

Here we go someone linking me to fanatics...it works both ways as I posted before. You will notice I was more mature and refrained from name calling.

 

And I do not believe antyone would know a religious state if it bit him in the ass.

Goto the Middle East and you will trully see what a religious state is.

I have heard nobody refer to our governing laws as Christian Laws, or Jewish Laws.

Not like Sharia Law.

The fact that abortion is alive and well is proof that this country is not a Christian state.

George Washington:

Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion, and Morality are indispensable supports.—In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens.—The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them.—A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity.—Let it simply be asked where is security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion.—Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure.—reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.—

 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
16th century Spain was a

16th century Spain was a Christian state. The US as the extreme right would like it to be would be a Christian state - read the 1980's book "The Handmaidens Tale" to see what a Christian State would be like.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Balone
Posts: 33
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Haidmaidens Tale

Oh read a fiction book. What might be in the mind of one person. is that anything like the book 1984 where things are similar but not exactly the way it is painted in the book.

 

And no they wouldn't because then they would not get away with the unchristian things they do.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Balone wrote:Here we go

Balone wrote:

Here we go someone linking me to fanatics...it works both ways as I posted before. You will notice I was more mature and refrained from name calling.

 

And I do not believe antyone would know a religious state if it bit him in the ass.

Goto the Middle East and you will trully see what a religious state is.

I have heard nobody refer to our governing laws as Christian Laws, or Jewish Laws.

Not like Sharia Law.

The fact that abortion is alive and well is proof that this country is not a Christian state.

George Washington:

Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion, and Morality are indispensable supports.—In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens.—The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them.—A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity.—Let it simply be asked where is security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion.—Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure.—reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.—

 

I am well aware that there are religious states in the Middle East. Why do you want to bring one here?

It seems that all the things that you list as bad "over there" those politicians who are beholden to your side want to make happen here.

We don't need to list them as "Judeo-Christian" laws here. It's a given.

Sharia law is not universally followed in Islamic countries - just the ones that want God to rule them. Does this seem familiar to you? If it doesn't, you don't have a grown-up interest in the news.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Balone wrote:Oh read a

Balone wrote:

Oh read a fiction book. What might be in the mind of one person. is that anything like the book 1984 where things are similar but not exactly the way it is painted in the book.

 

And no they wouldn't because then they would not get away with the unchristian things they do.

No, it's just what could happen when people take religion too far into political life (aka your wet dream).

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
A truly "Christian" country

A truly "Christian" country would be just as bad as an Islamic one. I'd rather live in a country where none of the laws are based on religion.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Balone wrote:Oh read a

Balone wrote:

Oh read a fiction book. What might be in the mind of one person. is that anything like the book 1984 where things are similar but not exactly the way it is painted in the book.

 

And no they wouldn't because then they would not get away with the unchristian things they do.

 

So are you saying that the RCC didn't 'get away with' the Inquisition?

The Spanish Inquisition lasted until 1865. Torture, burning for heresy, forced confessions and conversions... are these Christian things to do?

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

Quote:
Edit to add: Keep in mind, the authors of the tales, when originally composing them (likely in an oral tradition), would have known whether they were composing fiction or not, which, as demonstrated above, is still a lie, though not any indication of malevolence.

Depends on how they were created IMO.  For instance, if a person see's lightening, calls it "god lightening"--meaning, to him, that god's only attribute is seen in lightening.  Tells his son, that is "god lightening."  That son calls it "zeus," just for the sake of shorting the name.  Tells his son, "that is zues."  That son connects certain practices he does with the the arrival of lightening, i.e., an honest mistake that correlation equals causation; says "if I sacrifice, zues won't send lightening."  The last assertion wouldn't be a lie IMO--nor any of them.

If all mythology was created in such a piecemeal way.. it's possible that no one really knew that they were composing fiction or not.

Possibly true for religious practices, but not the underlying beliefs, ie: God created the earth in seven days. Athena sprang fully grown and armored from the forehead of Zeus, etc. The 'myths' of any religion have to be created somewhere, not simply aggregate misinterpretations of observed coincidence. The first guy to say 'And THE LORD said "Let there be light", and there was light. And THE LORD looked upon the light and saw that it was good.' was fabricating that whole cloth.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
Balone wrote:Now, next

Balone wrote:

Now, next question: how exactly do you propose to get evidence for something that doesn't exist?  How could you?  If it doesn't exist, it can't leave footprints, appear in photographs, distort the path of light or alter the orbit of something.  If it doesn't exist, it's not there to create physical evidence.

So you have no evidence....that is what I thought.

Of course I have no evidence of something that doesn't exist.  You say that like it somehow weakens my position, or strengthens yours.

Try for reading comprehension, please.  Your argument was:

Balone wrote:

Who says the Bible is full of lies, you. Who are you? Can you prove they are lies? Just as I do not have physical evidence that there is a God, you do not have physical evidence there is not.

So you're saying "your argument is bad because you have no evidence" and "my argument is good even though I have no evidence".  I say I do not believe you specifically because you have no evidence to support your claim, which you try to rebut with "yeah, but you don't have proof either!"  When I point out that you can't find evidence of something that doesn't exist, you go back to "aha!   So you admit to not having evidence (whose existence is impossible)?!"  Do you not see how stupid your argument is?

If you don't understand that 1) people who claim things have to prove them; and 2) things that don't exist can't leave evidence of their nonexistence, you may want to get comfortable with getting eaten alive while posting here.

Quote:

And science would have me believe DARK MATTER exists even though it is missing the same things as proof as the ones missing from the existence of God.

If you think this is what is said about dark matter, even though I have almost no background in physics I feel comfortable in telling you that you've misunderstood what they're talking about.

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.


Visual_Paradox
atheistRational VIP!Special Agent
Visual_Paradox's picture
Posts: 481
Joined: 2007-04-07
User is offlineOffline
Quote:That would be like me

Quote:
That would be like me saying you stop your communist regimes and I will stop.

I would stop my communist regime, but I don't have one.

Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Possibly true for

Quote:
Possibly true for religious practices, but not the underlying beliefs, ie: God created the earth in seven days. Athena sprang fully grown and armored from the forehead of Zeus, etc. The 'myths' of any religion have to be created somewhere, not simply aggregate misinterpretations of observed coincidence. The first guy to say 'And THE LORD said "Let there be light", and there was light. And THE LORD looked upon the light and saw that it was good.' was fabricating that whole cloth.

True. I can't think of any way to get around that.. unless.. the original teller meant for it to be taken as allegory.. not necessarily fiction.  As the allegory was passed along, people may have "honestly mistaken" it for fact...

Hmm.. would an allegory be considered a lie?  I mean.. assuming the teller originally told people it was an allegory. 

I'm reminded of a statement some person once told me.. and I didn't challenge it at the time, but thought about it for sometime.  She said, "actors lie for a living."  Now, if an actor tells you he is acting, then begins to act, is he lieing when he presents himself as a what he is acting as?

Certainly, if he is acting like a cop when he is an actor, then the idea that he is a cop is a lie, but since he has previously informed that he was going to act... I'm just not sure it would be accurate to say he is lieing.

Anycase, food for thought.


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Visual_Paradox

Visual_Paradox wrote:

Quote:
That would be like me saying you stop your communist regimes and I will stop.

I would stop my communist regime, but I don't have one.

Are you sure? Check under the bed again.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


theotherguy
theotherguy's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote:Visual_Paradox

BMcD wrote:

Visual_Paradox wrote:

Quote:
That would be like me saying you stop your communist regimes and I will stop.

I would stop my communist regime, but I don't have one.

Are you sure? Check under the bed again.

 

By Joe, you're right!  They even have little parades with missile launchers under there!


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote:True. I

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

True. I can't think of any way to get around that.. unless.. the original teller meant for it to be taken as allegory.. not necessarily fiction.  As the allegory was passed along, people may have "honestly mistaken" it for fact...

Hmm.. would an allegory be considered a lie?  I mean.. assuming the teller originally told people it was an allegory. 

I'm reminded of a statement some person once told me.. and I didn't challenge it at the time, but thought about it for sometime.  She said, "actors lie for a living."  Now, if an actor tells you he is acting, then begins to act, is he lieing when he presents himself as a what he is acting as?

Certainly, if he is acting like a cop when he is an actor, then the idea that he is a cop is a lie, but since he has previously informed that he was going to act... I'm just not sure it would be accurate to say he is lieing.

Anycase, food for thought.

Oh, sure he's lying. He's presenting a falsehood, an invented story. But again, he's not doing it maliciously. He doesn't intend it to harm anyone, just as I'd feel comfortable saying that authors of allegorical tales that became mythology didn't intend to harm anyone. But they're presenting an untrue invention, nonetheless.

The problem comes with awareness. If the audience knows the presentation is untrue, they can either enjoy it for entertainment value, or take the allegory as presenting the message it's supposed to convey. When they don't know it's untrue, then things get difficult, because they often decide that anyone challenging the veracity of the tale is challenging the validity of the tale.

I don't believe that the third human being ever to exist killed the fourth human being ever to exist in fit of pique because God liked Abel's offering better. I strongly doubt the veracity of that story. I do not, however, doubt the validity of the warning the tale conveys: If you murder someone, we will drive you away from our society. (Or, more broadly: If you act out of selfishness and spite, you will lose the benefits that society gives.) It's a perfectly valid lesson, and a good use of allegory. But that doesn't make the story true. Unfortunately, when people make emotional investments into the belief structure built upon the specific tale (as opposed to the lesson of the tale), then when you challenge the veracity of the tale, they feel like you're challenging the validity of it, and through that, the validity of the belief structure they've chosen to live their lives by... which is ironic, because I think that setting aside the myth, the lessons taught by most of those myths are pretty universal ones.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Oh, sure he's lying.

Quote:
Oh, sure he's lying. He's presenting a falsehood, an invented story. But again, he's not doing it maliciously. He doesn't intend it to harm anyone, just as I'd feel comfortable saying that authors of allegorical tales that became mythology didn't intend to harm anyone. But they're presenting an untrue invention, nonetheless.

I'm afraid I'm just gonna have to disagree.  I usually interpret "lieing" to mean something along the lines of "intentionally presenting a falsehood."  I'm not sure you're presenting a "falsehood" when you say "I'm going to act like I'm a cop" and then start acting like a cop.. because all you're doing is doing exactly what you said you were going to do and the person who is watching you knows that he is just "watching someone acting as a cop."

Now, of course, at some course during the performance there may be a "suspension of disbelief," but that is, technically, through no fault of the actor--it was a unilateral decision made by the spectator.

But.. it's arguable I suppose.. or perhaps I'm wrong about that as well.


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote:Quote:Oh,

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

Quote:
Oh, sure he's lying. He's presenting a falsehood, an invented story. But again, he's not doing it maliciously. He doesn't intend it to harm anyone, just as I'd feel comfortable saying that authors of allegorical tales that became mythology didn't intend to harm anyone. But they're presenting an untrue invention, nonetheless.

I'm afraid I'm just gonna have to disagree.  I usually interpret "lieing" to mean something along the lines of "intentionally presenting a falsehood."  I'm not sure you're presenting a "falsehood" when you say "I'm going to act like I'm a cop" and then start acting like a cop.. because all you're doing is doing exactly what you said you were going to do and the person who is watching you knows that he is just "watching someone acting as a cop."

Now, of course, at some course during the performance there may be a "suspension of disbelief," but that is, technically, through no fault of the actor--it was a unilateral decision made by the spectator.

But.. it's arguable I suppose.. or perhaps I'm wrong about that as well.

But you are presenting a falsehood. You're just being honest about doing it. Smiling But like I said, as long as the audience knows, no harm, no foul.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Query: What's the falsehood?

Query: What's the falsehood? He said he was going to acting like a cop and he actually is acting like a cop, he never said he was a cop and never presented himself as a cop. Smiling  But like I said, its arguable I think... just a matter of how you frame the acting and "lies."


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote:Query:

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

Query: What's the falsehood? He said he was going to acting like a cop and he actually is acting like a cop, he never said he was a cop and never presented himself as a cop. Smiling  But like I said, its arguable I think... just a matter of how you frame the acting and "lies."

The events he's portraying are the falsehood: an invented thing. Even if he's portraying actual events, he can't ever be 100% accurate to every motion and timing. But yeah, it's definitely arguable. Otherwise, we couldn't be arguing it! (damn, I'm brilliant... heh) Smiling

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
Visual_Paradox

Visual_Paradox wrote:

Quote:
That would be like me saying you stop your communist regimes and I will stop.

I would stop my communist regime, but I don't have one.

It's behind the mayo.  Honestly, men can never find things in the fridge...

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.


Visual_Paradox
atheistRational VIP!Special Agent
Visual_Paradox's picture
Posts: 481
Joined: 2007-04-07
User is offlineOffline
Expressing false ideas is

Expressing false ideas is not equivalent to lying. Honest mistakes aren't lies, nor are fables. Lying is the act of expressing a falsehood with the intent to deceive.

Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Otherwise, we couldn't

Quote:
Otherwise, we couldn't be arguing it!

Curses on you! Curses on you and your clever wording.