Home « Forum « Story Discussion and Feedback

Forum: Story Discussion and Feedback

My predictions on same sex marriage are already happening

Ernest Bywater
Updated:

In my latest story I predict increasing legal issues over the same sex marriage issue, and there are already court cases on it in the USA.

http://storiesonline.net/s/11815/same-sex-marriage-d-eb-acle


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/us/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage.html


The legal war has started.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer

@Ernest Bywater

The legal war has started.

I'm sorry, but the "legal war" is the same that George Wallace fought: "I'm White, and I'm Entitled to whatever falsehoods I choose."

George Wallace eventually lost, but he managed to pillory, degrade and hurt a LOT of good people. Just like with Trump, being the loudest doesn't make what you say any truer. Usually, the louder someone shouts, the less they know. Generally, the smarter and more experienced someone is, the quieter they'll answer. (Yes, yes, I see the irony here. But I didn't say anything about those who talk incessantly.)

Crumbly Writer

By the way, NPR had an excellent report on a woman in the same position, way back in 1975 who allowed gays to marry.

In 1975, Colo. Clerk Says Same-Sex Marriage License Generated Hate

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@Crumbly Writer

CW,

I fully expect, and agree with, the civil laws approving same sex marriage and giving them the same rights as all other forms of civil marriage. I also approve of the separation of church and state in all things.

In the story I predicted some people from both sides of the issue looking to impose their view on the other and the matter going to the courts when they don't need to, simply because going to court gets better media attention.

In the case I link to (yes I read three or four media reports on it first) the clerk was wrong and her management should simply have directed her to issue the licences or remove her from the office for refusing to do her work in accordance with the law. But no, the people she upset went to get a court order and make it a media issue instead of going to her bosses and complaining. That's the point I was making. I also expect to see someone going to court soon when a minister of religion refuses to conduct a same sex marriage, despite the people getting married being able to get any judge etc to do it.

The laws and courts should allow same sex marriage with the full supports of all marriage. People employed as public servants should obey the laws and abide by the laws by issuing licences for same sex marriages. BUT the laws should not be used to force people to do things they disagree with, they should be used to tell them to do as required you go find another job, not go to court and jail for contempt.

Ernest Bywater

@Crumbly Writer

Put that woman in for the Silver Star, she took on a job and did it exactly as per the legislation she was given to carryout. I take my hat off to her, unlike the idiot in Kentucky and the attention seekers who went for court orders instead of getting her sacked for incompetence and refusal to do her job as per the law.

Joe_Bondi_Beach

@Ernest Bywater

In the case I link to (yes I read three or four media reports on it first) the clerk was wrong and her management should simply have directed her to issue the licences or remove her from the office for refusing to do her work in accordance with the law. But no, the people she upset went to get a court order and make it a media issue instead of going to her bosses and complaining.


She's an elected official. She doesn't have "a boss."

Plus, what's the problem with going to the courts to enforce your rights, anyway? Asserting otherwise reminds me of comments from the seventies about "women's libbers": How come they're so rude! What bitches! They should just ask politely ... and so on.

I think Martin Luther King, Jr. didn't protest quietly, if I remember correctly. For good reason.

Replies:   Grant  Ernest Bywater
Joe_Bondi_Beach

@Ernest Bywater

"I also expect to see someone going to court soon when a minister of religion refuses to conduct a same sex marriage, despite the people getting married being able to get any judge etc to do it."

Churches and ministers of religion are exempt from this law. There is no requirement for a minister to marry anyone the minister objects to. No Catholic priest is going to marry a divorced person. No rabbi is going to be obligated to marry two Christians.

The law applies specifically to marriages performed by civil authorities. Plus, of course, you need a license to have your marriage recognized by the state.

Grant

@Joe_Bondi_Beach

Plus, what's the problem with going to the courts to enforce your rights, anyway?

It should be as a last resort, not the first.

As it is, in the article I read, she was instructed by her superior(s) to do as instructed, and refused. That's when it went to court.

Dominion's Son

@Grant

As it is, in the article I read, she was instructed by her superior(s) to do as instructed, and refused. That's when it went to court.


Then the article you read is wrong. Kim Davis is an elected official (as are most county clerks across the US). She has no superiors who can order her to do this or that.

Also, according to several articles I have read, under Kentucky law, the only way to forcibly remove her from office is impeachment by the state legislature.

Ernest Bywater

@Joe_Bondi_Beach

Yes, she does have a boss - the mayor or councillors etc who are the local equivalent of mayor etc that run the local government. If she is the top dog in the local government, then her boss is the state govenor in most US states.

Ernest Bywater

@Joe_Bondi_Beach

I hope you're right and that's in the US legislation. All I know about the US legislation is what's been in the media and that one state where they've allowed same sex marriage for some time and a church was taken to court for not letting a same sex couple hold a wedding and reception on church grounds some years back.

The legislation changes for same sex marriage in the Australian federal laws do not state any exemptions for any reason. Thus, anyone approved to conduct a wedding under the Commonwealth Marriage Act could be liable for legal action should they refuse to conduct the wedding due to it being a same sex marriage. If they had a prior booking they could get away with simply saying they were unavailable, but not by saying "No, I'm against same sex marriage."

Replies:   Joe_Bondi_Beach
Ernest Bywater
Updated:

@Grant

I still think it need not have gone to court. her superiors had the option of sacking her for refusing to do her job. And if impeachment is needed, then her boss should've started the process.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@Ernest Bywater

Yes, she does have a boss - the mayor or councillors etc who are the local equivalent of mayor etc that run the local government.


She is the County Clerk, not a city Clerk.

Government doesn't work the way you think it does. Despite working in the same government, independently elected officials are generally not directly answerable to any other government official.

The only government entity that can forcibly remove her from office is the Kentucky state legislature.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Dominions Son
Updated:

@Ernest Bywater


And if impeachment is needed, then her boss should've started the process.


Yes, impeachment is needed and it is rather unlikely that the process can be started by anyone who is not a member of the Kentucky state legislature can start that process.

PS. The Kentucky state legislature is out of session at the moment, and the governor has explicitly refused to call an emergency session to handle an impeachment.

Ernest Bywater
Updated:

@Dominions Son

someone is the head honcho responsible for the operation of the local government activities and operations. I know some states in the US do it different to others and have read about elected local government officials being responsible to the state governor is some states, to the town or city mayor, or to the members of the local council or commissioners. But all have someone they are responsible to, it's just a matter of knowing the local rules to find the right boss.

Say the top dogs are county commissioners and there are restrictions on how they can sack her, they can put her on administrative leave and instruct her staff to do the work as per the laws. But that is not what's happened and it appears was not even tried to have happen.

Replies:   Dominions Son  tppm
Dominions Son

@Ernest Bywater

But all have someone they are responsible to


Not true at all. The mayor of a city for example is not answerable(in the way you are thinking) to anyone but the voters.


For all intents and purposes, the county clerks office is a completely separate and independent branch of the county government. The county clerk is the highest ranking official in the clerks office which is why that position is elected.

The only entity that can outright fire Kim Davis is the Kentucky state legislature. There is no single official with the power to do that.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Switch Blayde

I read an article today about a Tennessee judge refusing to grant a straight couple a divorce. He said if the U.S. Supreme Court defines what is a marriage, overriding state laws, then the Supreme Court needs to define when a marriage can be dissolved (divorce).

Replies:   Dominion's Son
Dominion's Son

@Switch Blayde

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/04/a-tennessee-judge-same-sex-marriage-and-opposite-sex-divorce/

Technically, while the Tennessee judge went on a rant about the US Supreme Court defining marriage, he actually in the end denies the divorce for perfectly ordinary state law statutory reasons.

Ernest Bywater

@Dominions Son

What you're saying is the County Clerk is the head bureaucratic honcho in the county and the only people above her are the state government. Then the complaint should have gone to the Kentucky legislature first, to have her recalled.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Crumbly Writer

@Joe_Bondi_Beach

The law applies specifically to marriages performed by civil authorities. Plus, of course, you need a license to have your marriage recognized by the state.

The key to the legislation (as interpreted by the courts) is that you cannot allow personal exemptions for the law, otherwise you have no law. That's why I was upset about the recent Tom Brady decision, where the judge decided "he didn't know destroying evidence was against the law". If you used that standard in criminal trials, you'd never convict anyone!

"I'm sorry, your honor, but no one ever told me not to shoot cops in the face!"

Crumbly Writer

@Ernest Bywater

Ernest, sorry but you're wrong in this case. Unlike most civil servants, her position is an elected one in her state/city. Thus you can't fire someone elected by the public. They can only be 'unelected' or impeached.

What's more, she only ran for the position after her husband died in office, so it was more of a 'sympathy' vote.

Dominion's Son
Updated:

@Crumbly Writer

Crumbly.

In the case of Kentucky, there is no recall (unelection) provision.

tppm

@Ernest Bywater

The ultimate "head honcho" is the Kentucky electorate, but, barring a special election or a recall, they won't have a formal say until her term is up (the U.S. system doesn't have votes of confidence). The state legislature could impeach her, but, based on polls, they won't, because they agree with her. That leaves the current situation with her serving a renewable 30 day jail sentence, till she either declares that she'll do her job, or her term expires, whichever comes first, on a charge of Contempt of Court.

Replies:   Dominion's Son
Dominions Son

@Ernest Bywater

Then the complaint should have gone to the Kentucky legislature first, to have her recalled.


I suppose so, but the problem here is that the Kentucky state legislature is in recess and will be for several months. The governor would have the power to call a special session, but has already ruled out doing so just to impeach Kim Davis.

Dominion's Son

@tppm

There is no provision in Kentucky law for recall elections and a special election can only be used for a vacant office, so the only option is impeachment.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@Dominion's Son

Then they should start impeachment action for failure to obey the law and duties of the position.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@Ernest Bywater

I agree, but they are in recess at the moment, and will be for several months yet, and the Governor, the only one with the power to call a special session has already ruled out doing so for the purpose of impeaching her.

JohnBobMead

@Crumbly Writer

What's more, she only ran for the position after her husband died in office, so it was more of a 'sympathy' vote.


Um, in the NY Times article linked in the original post, her husband was among the demonstrators outside the courthouse. Quoted as calling the judge a butt. Did she remarry?

Replies:   Dominion's Son
Dominion's Son

@JohnBobMead

More than once. From what I have read elsewhere, her current husband is #4.

Switch Blayde

@Crumbly Writer

What's more, she only ran for the position after her husband died in office, so it was more of a 'sympathy' vote.


I thought her mother was the County Clerk for 37 years and she got elected to replace her.

Joe_Bondi_Beach

@Ernest Bywater

All I know about the US legislation is what's been in the media and that one state where they've allowed same sex marriage for some time and a church was taken to court for not letting a same sex couple hold a wedding and reception on church grounds some years back.


Unlikely. Either you are misremembering or the article was wrong. But if you can give us a link or citation we can take another look.

There is a grey area-and it's a large one-where a religious organization also operates a non-religious activity: hospital, hotel, meeting area, restaurant, etc., and then the argument becomes whether the activity in question is "religious" or not, i.e., whether it's a "public accommodation" like a hotel or eatery that is not permitted to discriminate.

But the law and practice are pretty clear where we're talking about a church (or tabernacle or synagogue or mosque or whatever): there is no requirement to marry anyone in violation of the tenets of the faith. Nor is there any obligation to rent out the sacred space to persons who might engage in activities that violate the tenets of the faith.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater
Updated:

@Joe_Bondi_Beach

A property owned by the Methodist Church group Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association in Ocean Grove, New Jersey, has a Boardwalk Pavilion owned and maintained by the OCGMA. In 2007 they refused same sex couples from having wedding receptions there and the couples took them to court for refusing them the use of the church owned property.

In looking for the name of the location I found some interesting news article where same sex couple took court action for discrimination against a photographer who refused to do the photos at their wedding, and one where a baker was taken to court for refusing to do a wedding cake the way they wanted it for a same sex marriage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_Grove,_New_Jersey#Civil_union_controversy


The people taking the action say the others have no right to impose their beliefs on them, but then go to court to impose their beliefs on those who disagree with them. It seems, in the USA, you can't refuse to do business with the rainbow crowd. Also, I'm a bit later than I thought with some of them.

https://carm.org/christian-fined-refuse-photograph-same-sex-wedding


http://catholicbusinessjournal.biz/content/baker-refused-make-cake-gay-wedding-what-court-just-ruled-could-have-huge-implications

Replies:   Joe_Bondi_Beach
Joe_Bondi_Beach

@Ernest Bywater

A property owned by the Methodist Church group Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association in Ocean Grove, New Jersey, has a Boardwalk Pavilion owned and maintained by the OCGMA. In 2007 they refused same sex couples from having wedding receptions there and the couples took them to court for refusing them the use of the church owned property.


Right. See my post above where I pointed out that there is a gray area (meaning a disputed one) where the issue is an activity or locale owned by the church that is offered to the public as a venue for events. Such a locale is *not* a sanctuary, and there is no requirement for a church to permit the use of its sanctuary (for lack of a better term) for religious or other rites it does not approve of.

Your example does not cite a church being required to perform a religious ceremony for persons they deem unworthy. It discusses the use of what is in effect a public accommodation (as that term is used in U.S. civil rights law), not the use of the church or the performance of a religious rite.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@Joe_Bondi_Beach

First, the whole campus involved is church owned grounds, the pavilion is as much church property as the hall beside the chapel and is private property under their control. They do allow people to hire it for events, but it is not public property. Even the government held that they had the right to refuse them to use the building, but because the government had given the church some tax concession to allow the general public to walk along the waterside area instead of locking it up behind fences and gates, the government removed the tax concessions in an attempt to force them to do what the government wanted. The church didn't concede at that time, although later church leaders changed the policy on the issue.

I didn't claim it was sacred space or not, just church owned property. Anyone has the basic right to decide if they will let others use their property or not, except that no longer applies in the USA. If the courts can force people to do things for same-sex couples for events, then they can also force them to things for satanists for their events. If owners are no longer allowed to decide who they'll let use their properties, you'll see a lot of them being blocked from use by the general public.

Nor did I say it was for a religious ceremony, but that court case will be coming up soon, you can bet on that. They claim it's civil rights while removing the civil rights of the owners - the church in this case; thus it comes down to a matter of whose civil rights are the most important - the property owner who pays taxes or some noisy activist?

Replies:   Joe_Bondi_Beach
Joe_Bondi_Beach

@Ernest Bywater

thus it comes down to a matter of whose civil rights are the most important - the property owner who pays taxes or some noisy activist?


You mean noisy activists like Martin Luther King, Jr.? Or Rosa Parks? Susan B. Anthony? Pesky folks, those activists. They should just keep their mouths shut, right?

Funny how some Christians are painting themselves as victims when they aren't allowed to discriminate. Please note I said *some* Christians. The churches my family attended believed and acted differently.

In effect, the issue over the public space is exactly analogous to the baker or florist who won't provide service to a same-sex wedding. Just exactly like those who wouldn't serve African Americans. No longer allowed to discriminate.

Oh, and you have to pay taxes before you have civil rights? Well, we know justice is different for the rich than it is for the poor, no question, but here's what it boils down to: your civil rights end when they infringe significantly on someone else's. That's the long and the short of it. Where that point happens is a subject under vigorous debate.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@Joe_Bondi_Beach

Joe, get as angry as you like, but the situation is the courts are placing one group's civil rights over another. Everyone should have the same rights, but no group should have the right to force their ideas on another - regardless of who they are, and each group should have the right to decide on how they use their property and skills instead of being forced to do as the other group wants.

The faux Christians who refuse to have anything to do with same sex couples have the right to keep away from them and control their property. And the same is true in reverse.

If the owner of a bar refuses to serve same sex couples it's big news and he gets the pants sued off him, but when the owner of a same sex bar refuses to serve heterosexual couple nothing happens. Even Martin Luther King Jr. and Susan B. Anthony would scream that's wrong.

In Sydney there's a Gay Mardi Gras each year, a few years back on of the anti-gay groups wanted to put a group in the parade and were refused, no court tried to force their inclusion. But when someone organises a parade and refuses a gay group to participate the court orders them to allow it, I know of one case where the whole parade and community party was canceled because no one in the area agreed with the court order and all pulled out. They didn't hate gays, they just hated seeing people being forced to do things they disagreed with.

Let's take business. One of the legal foundations of business has always been the right to withdraw services or refuse services, but it seems that no longer exists in the USA. Taken to the extremes you'd be discriminating against a person to refuse to serve a drunk because he's drunk. With the baker, how do you think the same-sex couple would feel if he said he'd only provide a wedding cake with decoration like he's used to doing and they all show a man and woman on the cake. Want to bet they'd bitch about that, and the go to court because he did his usual job and not a special decoration for them? How about if he sold them an unadorned cake, that'd get another court case? How do you force someone to exercise their artistic talent? What if the photographer did the shots and they were crappy, how would they feel then, what would they do? Isn't it better to tell the people "I'm not happy doing this, you should find someone who can do a good job for you because they're happy with it?" But that's not what's happening or what we're seeing.

People will rather not have a business than be forced to do what they don't want to do. Thus you'll see business and services ceasing to be and prices go up.

Let's take this one step further - some shops only sell foods approved by certain religious authorities, doesn't that mean the makers of the other food can sue them for refusing to handle their products? If not, why not, it's discrimination? Where does this end? Where does one person's civil rights override another persons exact same civil rights? Where do they balance out? It's getting to the point they should call them court supported civil abuses!

Joe_Bondi_Beach

@Ernest Bywater

Everyone should have the same rights, but no group should have the right to force their ideas on another


Well, the reality is the sometimes there's a conflict, and some rights take precedence over others, and in the U.S. that's what courts are for-to resolve that conflict.

For myself, I think I'll leave this discussion at that.

Cheers,
bb

C

Crumbly Writer

@Ernest Bywater

The Saint Patrick's Day Parade in New York City has for years refused to allow the Irish Gay Groups access to the parade, and they're fully in their rights to do so. It's a private parade. However, any group that offers services, which is not a non-profit church group, is NOT allowed to discriminate. If they are there to protest, or cause trouble, then there are other actions, like court orders to stay 500 feet from the premises, but protests are allowed anywhere they want (within specific areas).

The point is, you can't be a commercial organization and discriminate. You also can't if you aren't a religious organization. The Boy Scouts got in because they are a 'church supported' non-profit.

At least, those are the U.S.A.'s constitutional laws.

Ernest, EVERYONE has the right to say whatever they want, even shouting at military funerals, even though thought they 'force their ideas on [others]. However, they are restricted to specific areas set back so they can't block access. There is NO right not to be bothered. There's a right to privacy, which is a little nebulous, but that's not the same thing (ex. that doesn't protect them from protests out on the street).

cave jug
Updated:

Hi there to all of you. With interest and an evil grin on my face I went through all of the exchange here. It is 21st Century and most of you are clinging to the bronze age myths of Palestine. The church was and will always be against the change in society. It diminishes their stranglehold and the power they have. Throughout human history it opposed the medicine, astronomy, biology and any natural science. What you are discussing is rotten and should be shelved just like Zeus, Thor, Poseidon and thousands other gods we realized were bullshit. And for some weird reason many still believe and cling to it like overgrown children on a mothers tit. Morality can not be taken from the most violent collection of stories of genocide, racism, homophobia. Get back on track and get rid of the bastards who want to chain humanity to logic and reason of the desert. Why would I or any of you care who fucks whom. And why would a gay couple want to wed in the church? It's a contradiction you may have a debate about, only if you manage to through off the chains some of you are shackled with.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@cave jug

Cavejug,

I don't give a hoot about who screws who or marries who, but I really hate hypocrisy; and that's what I'm seeing when people push their views on people not of their view - be it a religious view or otherwise. Anti-Christian Nazis are just as bad as Homophobic Nazis, in my view; ditto with the anti-Muslim Nazis. The sad thing is the way people run to court at the drop of a hat and are using the courts to push their views on others, while the judges and law makers are letting them.

Ernest

Replies:   cave jug
richardshagrin
Updated:

Judges and the majority of law makers are lawyers. Lawyers get paid by the hour. Is it surprising they have things set up so there are lots of billable hours for lawyers?

One Lawyer in town may starve. With two or more they have nice incomes.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer

@richardshagrin

One Lawyer in town may starve. With two or more they have nice incomes.

A single lawyer, by himself, is more like to die of strangulation!

garymrssn
Updated:

Civil Rights Law in the USA,being basically the art of determining where one persons face resides in relation to another persons fist in legal terms, is adjudicated by Tort rather than Canon law. Which means it is a lot like mud wrestling. To the uninitiated, after the first throw down, you can't tell much about either the contestants or the venue; except for the fact that it's all kind of muddy.

gridiron2393

I just want to say I'm happy with the debate tactics of this conversation. I have a genderqueer younger sibling who tried to kill themself (at the time herself) because of this issue. they didn't feel like they could fit into the real world while pretending to be someone else [41% attempt, not 5%, or 1%, but 41%, and it's universally agreed that no one wants this]). I was expecting to hear religious arguments mentioning hell and was very pleased that such references never came up. Ernest, I don't agree with any of your views on this issue, but I respect the hell out of you for not hate mongering and instead thinking legally. My sibling has gone from attempted suicide to becoming the rising star in the HRC campaign. They have set records in terms of fundraising and are on their way to making sure queer (the politically correct term for lbgt) people can't get evicted or fired based upon their sexual orientation. Marriage is legal, yes. My sibling can still get married at 12pm, get fired at 2pm, and get evicted at 4pm in the state they live in. I won't offer an opinion on whether businesses can turn away clients because I think business shouldn't be allowed to refuse homeless people who stink, either, but I know that's going to cause a bunch of different opinions. So I'll stay away from that. I just wanted to say thank you to everyone for talking from intellect instead of hate. Ernest, again, I completely disagree but thank you for not condemning anyone, that's the way this debate should be conducted.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@gridiron2393

G'day Gridiron,

For decades I've felt all people should have the same rights to before the laws and government and should be fully respected. I disagree with the stance a lot of the faux Christians take on the issue of what's termed gay right and have often said, in many forums, the faux Christians should keep out of the legislation process. I've also said the same about equal rights for Australian Aboriginals.

However, what worries me is the way a small part of these communities are pushing to demand their rights override the rights of others who disagree with them. It seems to me they want to put down those who used to put them down. In short, they want to take over as top dog and step on those they disagree with instead of going for equality.

Marriage law is a civil law event, and the church should keep out of what the law says. However, most churches also have a religious rite they call a marriage ceremony and each church should be able to set the rules about how and when its rites are performed without the government interfering. Sadly, we're already seeing the government in the US starting to tell some of the churches what they can and can't do about their religious ceremonies and wanting to force them to do things against their doctrines. I just want everyone to live and let live, but a few of the loudest on each side refuse to allow that and the courts and law makers are leaning towards one side over the other instead of staying impartial. Mind you, until recently those same courts and law makers had been leaning in the other direction, lets try and get them to stop leaning.

I hope your sibling finds acceptance and peace with the world and is able to live happily.

gridiron2393

My sibling has not found peace sadly. they just opened up the first office in HRC history that is in a "red" state. (this being Georgia). They can't get married in any church aside from one that supports pan-sexual marriage. You're right that they can't have a traditional Christian/Islamic/Judaic service, but what matters to us is how the person gets treated. They (my sibling) don't want benefits, they just want a fair chance at the next job they go after.

The UCC in North Carolina is actually suing the US because the congress in NC banned gay marriage. The UCC (United Church of Christ) says that this violates their religious freedom. I say that we treat queer people and fornicators the same. If one is queer, or if one has fornicated in any form before marriage, then they'll all burn in hell. If they don't burn, let their actions decide their fate.

All I can really say about your views of oppression is to look back. Look at the 60's. Hell, look at the 10's when women realized they could fight. we're in the same battle now with gay marriage. At least my grandchildren will be proud of me for being emphatic about my support, as opposed to being ashamed, like I Am, of having a great grandfather who led the south in the civil war. Think about life 50 years from now and decide which side is most optimal.

Ernest Bywater

@gridiron2393

G'day Gridiron,

Everybody should be treated the same and have the exact same rights and obligations before the community, the government, and the law. The sad part is this is not the case and hasn't been. I've supported, and pushed for, equal rights for all for over 40 years, but I never push for one group to get power or authority over another, just all to be equal. I find it sad many call for equal rights then demand their rights supersede the rights of others - which is what I've been bitching about in this thread. All should be equal and not supersede others from either side of any aspect.

If you take the time to read the points and Bible quotes in my story about this on SOL ( http://storiesonline.net/s/11815/same-sex-marriage-d-eb-acle ) you'll see the UCC are not Christians but fake or pretend Christians because Jesus taught you should accept everyone for who they are as a person and not what they are.

The authority and power of the church should end at the boundary of their building. They should have the right to say if they'll conduct a service in their church and who they'll let on their property, and everyone else should have those same rights, but the church has no right to say what the government and others do unless it enters onto the church property. Like any club, a church can decide who it lets join it and, but they have no right to tell people what to do in their own homes.

BTW If the UCC wants to establish marriage laws in line with the Bible, then they have to push for multi-spousal marriage because that's the Biblical standard. The only place where the Bible talks of having only one wife is on Timothy Chapter 3 where Paul sets out the requirements for a Bishop and a Deacon within the church, which includes having one wife. Nothing is said in Timothy about how many wives others are to have. Also, the Mosaic law sets out the rules for caring for the more than one wife. So next time some faux Christian goes on about the marriage laws get right up them on that, especially if they're Catholics because their priests don't have any wives at all.

The only time sex should affect your employment is if it's not part of your job description and they catching having sex on the job. Even then, it shouldn't matter who your partner is, just that it's not something you should be doing on the job - unless paid for doing it.

I suspect we have the same core beliefs on the equal rights issue.

Replies:   Joe_Bondi_Beach
cave jug

@Ernest Bywater

The point I've tried to make was how organized religion has blinded humanity from the start and by your response , I've failed. You however did not address anything I have tried to convey, but chose to call me a Nazi. So much for the open mind. I was not pushing my views, simply stated the facts of the energy and the power church had over masses throughout centuries. And, I am glad that they are loosing ground more and more as the science marches on. Sure thing, science can not and will not have the answers for all the questions. But, imagine for a second, where would humanity be if we never asked and questioned the certainty the religion teaches? Back in the caves. Nobody can stop you to believe in whatever you choose to: gnomes, unicorns, gargoyles and such. If one chooses to surrender their basic faculties and follows the myths of bronze age goat herders is their business, but danger to the rest of us is that many of them have their finger on the button and can blow us all up any time they choose. Or, because some believed not so long ago that god was on their side when they flew planes into towers in New York. Anyhow, just few thoughts of an individual who will not buy into that racket.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@cave jug

G'day Cavejug,

I suggest you go back and re-read the last post I made direct to you. I didn't call you a Nazi, unless you claim to be one of the extremists in either of the two groups (one at each end of the spectrum). What the church leadership has done in the past to gain and keep power was wrong, and it's good that power is being eroded. However, that doesn't mean those who object to what the past church leaders have done have a right to take over the position and power the church leaders used in the past. What should happen is an equalization of the situation, not a replacement of one set of power mongers with a new set. Yet, what we're seeing is more and more situations is a replacement process not an equalization process. I've continuously said all have the same rights and all should be protected by the law, but no side's rights should override the other - something you seem to keep ignoring, and I don't know why.

Fanatics of any breed are a danger to the community, be they fanatics about one religion or another, or one religious sect or another, or a fanatical atheist, or a fanatical global weather nut, or a fanatical anti-global weather nut, or a fanatical anti-alcohol nut, or a recidivist, or a fanatical communist, or a fanatical capitalist - all types of fanatics are a danger, so don't just pick on one.

Replies:   cave jug
Crumbly Writer

@gridiron2393

Gridiron, I think you'll find us a very opinionated group, but largely fairly accepting. Every now and then, one of us will go off, but that's more the exception.

In my case, my brother was a seminal figure in the gay rights movement (back before it got expanded to the LGTB community), so I've long dealt with those issues in my stories. I've always taken a 'pull' vs. 'push' approach. There are plenty of people demanding to be treated fairly, so I try to show LGTB characters as relatable to nudge the more belligerent in a quieter approach.

By and large, high school is NOT an LGBT friendly place!

Joe_Bondi_Beach

@Ernest Bywater

f you take the time to read the points and Bible quotes in my story about this on SOL ( http://storiesonline.net/s/11815/same-sex-marriage-d-eb-acle ) you'll see the UCC are not Christians but fake or pretend Christians because Jesus taught you should accept everyone for who they are as a person and not what they are.


If you'll take the time to read about the United Church of Christ (UCC) you'll find that you are totally off base with the North Carolina case. In North Carolina, the legislature passed legislation prohibiting same-sex marriage and providing penalties for any officiant, religious or secular, who performed such a marriage. The UCC sued in federal court (http://www.ucc.org/north-carolina-marriageequality-10102014) claiming that the legislation violated the church's First Amendment rights, and the court agreed.

The UCC supports marriage equality (http://www.ucc.org/lgbt_issues_marriage-equality_index).

Who is faux Christian and who isn't is a contentious issue. I'd put the UCC in the "real Christian" category.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@Joe_Bondi_Beach

Sorry, I misread your early post and thought the UCC was suing to stop equal marriage rights. Good on them.

cave jug
Updated:

@Ernest Bywater

Well Sir, we are at the odds still I'm afraid. It seems I have poked into a sore place in your psyche, the result being your terse response. If I did belong to any extreme wing I would have not be trying to debate with you. It is not my intention to anger you but my stance on religion throughout short history is making you uneasy. I therefore conclude that, even though you have sited a long list of extremisms you object to and dislike, religion or rather your faith in supernatural can not be a subject for discussion. This thread started with a premise of a possible increase in law suits regarding same sex marriage and degraded to where we are. My assertion was and still is, the objection to it stems from religious dogma. Judging by resent revelations (pun intended) Catholic priests were excluded from homosexuality and rape of children. Just one example of insidious nature of power some have usurped in the name of the cloth they have as a protection. As for fanatical atheist, there is no such a word, I will look it up though. A definition of an atheist is someone who does not believe in a supernatural being. Full stop. But even if there is a word you used, I'll be glad to be branded as being one, based on, if nothing else, on the rich history of religious hordes roaming the Europe for centuries. Now we are witnessing Islam on the march where we all are trembling at the possibilities of a state of theirs acquiring a thermo-nuclear weapon. So if I'm right about your religiosity, by all means pray to whichever deity you choose, but do not try to have a cake and eat it too. I'll repeat myself, one and only assertion in this exchange I make, is the evil of religion in this time we live in.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@cave jug

G'day Cavejug,

The only issue I have in our side discussion is when I make a generic statement and you abuse me for making a personal insult direct at you. I'm not angry about this, but it seems you are.

Atheism is as much a religious belief as any other, because it resolves around what you believe.

At no point in this discussion have I presented or supported any religious dogma on this issue. In fact, I've made several comments against religious dogma on the issue. What does concern me, and why I started this thread, was the growing situation where a small group of activists (fanatic may be a better word) are claiming for equal rights, but want to have their rights as being more important than the rights of those they disagree with. To me, it matter not who is pushing for that sort of superior rights. The church powers were wrong to push for superior rights in the past, just as the bigots have been wrong to push for superior rights over other racial groups, and it's just as wrong for any group to push for superior rights. Equal means equal and all should have the same rights - which I've consistently said in this thread.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
cave jug
Updated:

Extraordinary. You have lost your own thread. You are contradicting yourself in your last replay, to me, it seems you are making up as you go, Sir, at pains to leave the past to the by past..."The church powers were wrong to push for superior rights in the past"..and let us ignore what they still do in the present. People like me who dared to question a priest or father or reverend,were burned at the stakes for heresy, and you want me to ignore it? It has taken almost 300 years for the church to "apologizes to Galileo, for telling the bastards the earth is NOT the center of the visible universe and the Sun DOES NOT revolve around Earth, but it's the other way around.

It has been agreed upon, among those who are honest with themselves that, Religion is a socially excepted psychosis. No more , no less, and the cure for it is a relentless and merciless ridicule. Nothing short of that will put them on the back foot, nothing short of that will get them out of our daily and political life. We are at the precipice of total destruction, and what every monotheistic branch of "burning bush" mythology professes as an ultimate destination. You are at pains to assert, repeatedly, how you stand for equal rights for everyone, but you dislike that the only course an individual has are the courts. It is plain to all who may have read thus far, that the current state of affairs not good, and somehow it would be better if you were to be listen to. A small group of activists or just a single person has, or, it suppose to have the rights just as much as you or I have. And if you and I do not like it, it's to bad, that is in the Constitution.

"Sorry, our Constitution clearly states that, you have no rights to endanger your fellow Americans, unless it's.................. …..with the gun"

Let me quote another line of yours.

"Atheism is as much a religious belief as any other, because it resolves around what you believe."

Well, my friend, you show how little you know or refuse to acknowledge. It seems You have swallowed your moral code in tablet form (pun intended) because, and again it is your business and choice. I could not care less, however, Atheism is a religion just like the abstinence is a sex position. There is no way I can get through to you and make you see my point. And it is fine, it is not the first time nor will be my last to try to debate a religious mind. You have been indoctrinated at the age of 3 or 4, more then likely, by the people whom you trusted unreservedly. Mum and Dad. Shame on them. You felt abused by me for not agreeing with you from the start and brought up the unmentionable. In the minds of religious, faith is untouchable, sacred and unquestionable.

Please, let me add at the end few lines on Jesus Christ. By the way, how come he is the only one with a surname in the Bible? Have you ever asked yourself that? There is no mention of Mrs and Mr Christ, but I digress.

I could admire Jesus and most of his ideas, but, way to many of his fans freak me out! Who would not want to vote for a peaceful, radical, revolutionary, who hung around with lepers, hookers and criminals, never spoke English, was anti-wealth, was completely against death penalty, anti public prayer, yes, look it up, (Matthew 6;5), never once anti-gay, never once mentioned abortion, technically never mentioned pre marital sex, never called poor lazy, never voted for tax-cuts for the wealthiest Nazarenes, never asked a leper for a co-payment, was a long haired, brown skinned, homeless, unarmed, anti-slut shaming, community organiser, Palestinian Jew. But, that is if you actually really believe what is in the Bible. Some think the rules come from Jesus, but none of them do. The Catholic church does what we do most of the time. A bunch of guys sitting around making up new rules. For example, confession; Jesus never said anything about it, ever, they pulled that one out of their arses in the 12th Century, just like with rule, women can not be priests, is NOT in the Bible, neither is celibacy for the priests. We did not have that till the 4th century, and even then, priests could marry, they just could not have sex, like....in a regular marriage. Jesus never said anything about Pope, who should live in a palace, and be carried in a chair like Liz Taylor in "Cleopatra" or papal infallibility, another rectum derived edict that came in the year 1870.

And I can go on. You now why? Because I've spent 8 and a half years of my life bruising my arse at the University of Theology to become one of the revered man who stands in front of his Congregation and vomits the crap the unwashed swallow. The best years of my youth, studding Bible (more then the one you may have know of), Talmud, Qur'an and all its edicts, and wandered how come so many versions of supposed "God's word". And more I asked, more my superiors avoided and dodged by introducing interpretations of their own. At last I asked myself, If just one is wrong, what makes another true? The logical thought to follow is that they all must be wrong. How come God has run out of miracles last 2000 years? Isn't it time to come out , again, since we can now read and write, have iPads and iPhones, speak many languages and stop us killing and hating each other? Why is he so shy and does not show himself, to all atheists like myself and to Budists too, I presume He made me and them as well, did he not? Why this trickery and secrecy. No my friend. There is no one there. I am quite fine with that. "If he is willing to prevent evil but not able? Then is he impotent. Is he able but not willing? Then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?" - Epicurus

When I die, and cancer will kill me soon, I will not know about myself, just the way I did not know before I was born. Life without god is just like a fish without bicycle.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@cave jug

G'day Cavejug,

I suggest you go back and try rereading my posts with a dictionary on hand to make sure you're understanding what I'm saying. I'm saying that one group shouldn't have power over another, regardless of who they are. At no point have I said we should forget the past, but I will now say the past shouldn't be used to justify picking on a group now or in the future - be it a justification to continue in the picking on or to swap who gets picked on.

You may want to go back and read the Bible to get a few things straight. Jesus is usually referred to as either Jesus or Jesus the Christ - the same way they'd talk about Fred the carpenter or Harry the tax collector.

If you bother to read the story I wrote, you'd see I use Biblical quotes to show Jesus didn't support bigotry of any sort and it was wrong for the church to do so. I also point out the few directives Jesus does give and point out the others are from the church hierarchy only.

BTW It seems you missed an important point in your theology studies, Much of the Hebrew Scriptures in the Torah, Talmud, and Midrash are incorporated into the Christian Bible as the Old Testament, and also much of the Muslem Quran is a direct take from the Hebrew Scriptures with some extras added to them. This is because the later two are derived from the first. Thus a lot of what's in them is the same - except for where the translation or translator may have changed them due to word choice options or deliberate intent.

On another aspect, despite the many churches teaching so, I've not seen anywhere in the Bible where God or Jesus says they'll direct every aspect of our lives, but have seen some where they tell us we need to make our own decisions. And your comments on the Catholic Church leadership are basically the cause of a lot of the issues in the world today.

As to miracles, when one happens today people don't call it a miracle they give it a host of other names to avoid calling it a miracle - a common one is spontaneous remission.

However, I do not try to make people believe their is a God, nor do I try to make them believe there isn't a God. I leave them up to deciding on their own belief structure. Also, when they claim they use a documented set of rules to live by, I will ask they live by what's in the documents and not what they think may be in there. I also don't support one group having ascendancy over another for any reason because I think all should be equal in all ways.

Replies:   cave jug
p0ps

A marriage lic is nothing more than a tax .Because we are under English common law you can declare you are married and it will stand up in court . Next the most people in Ky suport what the lady is doing ,that is her job to do what her people want . we could use a few more people in office doing what their people want and not what the party or who ever wants. Now lets put this bs to sleep and pay atention to things that are important

.

Replies:   Dominions Son  cave jug
Dominions Son

@p0ps

Because we are under English common law you can declare you are married and it will stand up in court .


You are wrong, at least as to the US. The majority of states outlawed common law marriage (what you are referring to) in the mid 19th century. Mostly so they could block interracial marriages.

There are maybe one or two states that recognize common law marriages today. If you are not in one of those states, sure you can cohabit and call yourselves married, but you won't be able to file taxes jointly or get many of the other legal benefits given to marriage.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@Dominions Son

The last time I checked, most US starts recognised what's known as de facto marriages which is the equivalent to the British Common Law marriage. At one point it was the only type of marriage in many parts of the USA when they were still known as Territories. Some states do have laws recognising some of the other legal aspects of marriage and applying them to de facto marriage, while some don't. With regards to taxes and other laws, it's the way marriage is defined in the laws themselves that decides if they recognise it or not.

Crumbly Writer

@Ernest Bywater

What does concern me, and why I started this thread, was the growing situation where a small group of activists (fanatic may be a better word) are claiming for equal rights, but want to have their rights as being more important than the rights of those they disagree with.

Ernest, I've got to take exception to this (one of your main themes here). The LGBT community is Not demanding 'special rights' (a popular claim by the evangelicals), they're requesting that laws apply to everyone equally.

The 'gay marriage' fight was never an attempt to 'redefine' marriage, but simply an attempt to be treated the same as everyone else (esp. in regards to tax law, inheritance, child custody, etc.). They (the general LGBT community) have Not demanded that Catholics perform gay marriages, they're requesting that benefits offered one group be applied equally to others in the exact same position.

I suspect what you mean is that they (LGBT guys) are demanding that the religious community agree with them. But again, that's not a fair criticism. They don't want everyone to agree with them, but bakers refusing to serve gays is eerily similar to white own stores refusing to sell items to blacks in the fifties. They can think whatever they want. They don't have to associate with them, but they can't refuse to serve a whole class of individuals for something beyond their control.

Cavejug, your claims of Ernest contradicting his own claims isn't that unusual on this forum. Either we express ourselves poorly, we say something without organizing our thoughts first, or we change our thinking midway through (our thoughts are the same, but the results of those thoughts change with more input).

By the way, claiming that ALL religious people act a certain way is lowering yourself to their level, hurting your own position. You're using one 'religious' position (there is no god) to judge whole classes of people as being 'undeserving' of equal consideration.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater  cave jug
Ernest Bywater

@Crumbly Writer

CW,

I'm not saying, and have never said, the LGBT community (as a whole) was pushing for anything more than equal rights, which I've always said they should have. However, some of the more extreme LGBT activists are pushing well beyond that are doing things to seek or create confrontations and want more than equal rights - and that's what I object to.

If someone refuses to do normal day to day trade with someone that's a case of discrimination, as you say, but when they want something special that's not a normal trade item, then the business owner has a right to not do a special order for any reason, which is what happened with the baker (based on what was in the three news reports I saw). How would they have reacted if what he offered to supply was the standard style wedding cake he does with a male and female figure because that's one of his common special orders?

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer

@Ernest Bywater

How would they have reacted if what he offered to supply was the standard style wedding cake he does with a male and female figure because that's one of his common special orders?

It's not uncommon for gays marrying to bring their own figurines, since these are considered 'specialty items' and wouldn't be stocked by most bakeries. Thus it has little to do with 'extra effort' and is more of an outright refusal to conduct business with people they disapprove of. They deny they 'disapprove' of gays, but their actions speak MUCH louder than their 'after-the-fact' mealy-mouthed words.

Again, I still don't see where the gays, in these instances, are asking for any special favors. In most cases, gays wouldn't want to work with someone who disapproves of them (the baker in question, as far as I know, had Never been asked to bake a gay wedding cake), but in some instances, there's only a single business available, so that one person refusing to do business is denying them service!

richardshagrin

I read a news item about a barber being sued, and losing $750 penalty, because he didn't want to cut the hair of a female. There appears to be something in his state barber licensing about learning how to cut the hair of both sexes. I think its pushing equal rights a little far to require barbers to cut women's hair. What if he gave her a crew cut? That was suggested by one of the on-line comments. First Barber shops, then rest rooms. Where will it end?

Replies:   tppm  cave jug
cave jug
Updated:

@Crumbly Writer

Thank you CW for you comment on my contribution on this thread. You are right in all but one point.

Atheism is NOT a religion, it is not a place where we congregate, chant the songs or confess our indiscretions to our friend upstairs, our judge, jury and the executioner, collect the money for the Pat Robertsons or Jerry Follwels of some other nut whom we blindly follow, a place where belief in rational logical and numinous is suspended and the myth of goat herding tribe of the past long forgotten let into our souls to be "saved" from the ills our supposed maker has endowed each and every one of us. We do not kneel five times a day and endlessly profess our faith and love for the one who is so good in playing seek and hide. We do not have special greetings to announce the color of the tribe we belong to, damn the others. No there is no such place.

We are everywhere and have been fighting the superstition, power and influence of those who married their faith with the law makers and politicians. And so should you. The United States of Amnesia is the only country in this world where the church is separated from the state by the law. But we need to be vigilant and fight the bustards every day.

Not long ago the rampaging horde of so called "faithful", were burning Embassies, kidnapping tourists , burned the flags of a small democracy in Europe, because, one of their newspapers printed cartoons of Muhammad. Such 'disrespect' of the prophet (no capitalisation on purpose) started an action of destruction of private and public property by
thousands of lunatics around the world, and stunned any civilised and free thinking individual. We have not recovered from it, have you noticed? But the worse thing of all, the MOST POWERFUL NATION in the world, cowered down and joined the silence and apologies to the thugs, from fear of repercussions! Not one outlet of printed media, cable canals, public TV, dared to show or print them, just to let the rest of us know what the fuss was all about. Each and every one of us knows, these individuals are enjoying freedom of expression in the West, and at the same time are oppressing the rest of us and would not be allowed to protest about ANY issue whatsoever in the countries they came from, UNLESS is to protect their religion! Shoot me if I'm wrong!

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
tppm

@richardshagrin

He should be willing to give her any of the haircuts he offers, just as a beauty parlor should be willing to give a man any of the stylings they offer.

cave jug
Updated:

@Ernest Bywater

I am sorry,Sir, but I am at the loss to understand your arguments when you say the following"


I'm saying that one group shouldn't have power over another, regardless of who they are.


That is precisely the world we exist in, hence, minority and majority. It is noble to think that we are all equals, we should strife to be so. We are not, in no respects but one, we all must take a breath every second. Equality was forced in China in Mao's regime. Can not work. While the small group of people exploits the wast number of other humans, there is no equality. We, as a species, are not there yet. No surprise to me though, Our evolution is yet to get us there. IT IS NOT going to be gifted to us by the invisible old man from above. You either fight to get us there or do not obstruct.

There is not one invention, discovery, advancement in medicine or any other benefit we enjoy this day and age that is contributed by religion. On the contrary, it was fought against by the members of the clergy, people were tortured, burned, dismembered, drowned, quartered, eyes put out, tongues cut of. WE OWE to those poor individuals who dared to question the church and died for. This man will not forget nor forgive. And look around nowadays, Sir, you can not get on the plane without everyone being scanned. And even after such precaution, you are not at peace. WHY is that. BECAUSE the parties of God has taken upon themselves to drive the fear into all of us.

On the point of religious texts, you can not possibly lecture me, Sir, unless you had dedicated 8.5 years of your life to the endless studies, incantations, songs, prayers and ceremonies, 24h a day, like I have been. I won't have it! You may have your doubts and hedge you bets on a possibility of existence of the savior, but not this primate.

As for Jesus, meek and mild, you should know a very small point. THERE is no Hell in the old testament. You died, end of story. So called New Testament gifts us with it, just to make sure, the celestial Dictatorship and the real fun start AFTER you die. Some design, some love. You and any other believer are welcome to it, not this monkey.

I here by finish my attempt to debate with you Sir, using a quote from a very knowledgeable and educated member of human race, Sam Harris

"If you wake up tomorrow morning thinking few Latin words over your pancakes is going to turn them into the body of Elves Presley, you've lost your mind. But if you think more or less about the same thing about a cracker and body of Jesus Christ,......... you are just a Catholic."

richardshagrin

There is a fair amount of religious art and architecture. Some religious groups have done a good job of teaching and education. There would be less charity without some religious groups. If you want to believe religion has no benefits, its a free country. I disagree. Not enough to go to Sunday mass, but based on the current day, most organized religions in America do more good than harm. It may be fanaticism that you dislike. Its likely both Hitler and Stalin were atheists. Mao and Pol Pot likely were too.

Replies:   madnige  cave jug
p0ps

part of the surprme courts ruleing to Ms O'Harria was that Atheism was a relious beleaf .please forgive my spelling as i am deflecit and can not spell well

madnige

@richardshagrin

Its likely both Hitler and Stalin were atheists.


It took me less than a minute to find evidence which contradicts this statement. Please do a little research first; such blatant posturing throws other perfectly valid ponts you have raised into a bad light and invites ad hominiem arguments such as are being pursued by another poster here.

Replies:   richardshagrin  cave jug
richardshagrin

@madnige

I read a very long Wikipedia article on Hitler. Deep in its inner recesses it indicated he was brought up Catholic but after he left home he never attended mass and often dismissed all Christianity as rubbish. He made a few public statements praising Martin Luther and Protestantism for political reasons but what I gathered from the article that he did not believe in God. I am not certain that made him an atheist but it comes pretty close to my understanding of the term.

cave jug
Updated:

@richardshagrin

Here we go again. Neither Hitler nor Stalin were atheists, as you assert. It shows how little you have learned.

Stalin was in a monastery, preparing for the priesthood in Russian Orthodox Church for two years, and revolution came in 1917. And if you want to be in a business of a Dictator, you would not pass the opportunity to exploit the credulity of peasants, who for centuries were told that The Czar, the head of church and the state was not just a mere human, He was and revered as half a god and as such had unlimited and unquestionable power over all subjects in the vastness of the territory he and his family ruled over.

As for Hitler, when he got into power, elected as Chancellor of Germany in 1939, the first pact he signed was with Vatican, and from there on his birthday, each year was celebrated from the pulpit in every church in every country where Fascism was ruling. Portugal, Spain, Italy, Croatia, Austria, Hungary, Occupied Slovakia and Czech Republic as well as in Germany and Poland. But you did not know that, did you?. You also do not know, on every buckle on every SS soldier, was an inscription " Got zum alles" "God is with us", hardly an atheistic regime, wouldn't you say? Perhaps, you should sit down and do some reading next time you think of your god, you may, just may learn the illustrious history of Christianity. And what good job "some religious have done in teaching and education" as you put it? Story of Adam and Eve and a talking snake? Noah,s ark and the pissed off good, who decided to kill everything he has supposedly created, because we did not love him enough? Or, the story of turning water into wine, and some such nonsense. And do not mention charity and religion in the same sentence. You are embarrassing yourself by doing so! Do you know, that Hammas, a "terrorist organization" by our standard, works exclusively in Gaza strip and Lebanon for more then 25 years and keeps alive more then 35 000 displaced Palestinians, who have lost the land and homes to hordes of fanatical Jews who have one and only one goal; to drive all non-Jews out of Palestine and bring ALL Jews in, and then and only then, the Messiah will come back, they will be worthy of his re-appearance. How is that, but not an insanity of desert goat herders. Take a look at the footage of the "faithful, chanting and talking to the wall! I and people like myself are to "respect" their faith like a virtue? Hell NO! Never!

As for Mao and Pol Pot, I'll do some reading and get back to you.

cave jug
Updated:

@madnige

I'll be happy, ad hominiem as you put it, to fight for all people who lost their lives at the hand of church in years gone by. Religion has never worked for the benefit of masses, on the contrary, it was and still is about power over us and the obedience. How is this for rational and logical thinking? NO person running for public position or office can be elected, regardless of their abilities, education, experience, unless he/she declares beforehand the allegiance to god! You have no idea how insulting and degrading that is to many of us who do not subscribe to the myths of the desert.

cave jug
Updated:

@richardshagrin

Shock horror! The end is neigh! Hide, hide, confess your sins! OR ask a Reverend. They tend to have all the answers! (Make sure , you've got some cash on you or a check-book with you. They do not work for free. God needs money, didn't you know?)

cave jug

@p0ps

No, the marriage license is to stop people participating in Polygamy, or Bigamy, it protects women as well as men, it ensures the child support when a partnership goes down the gurgle, and many other things a civilized society needs to survive. Do some reading, will you. You are embarrassing yourself.

Replies:   p0ps
p0ps

@cave jug

when was multimarriage outlawed in the US and why ?All the lic does is raise money and give the goverment more control over our lifes .a man can live with as many women as he wishes aslong as he does not marry them . it proyects no one

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@p0ps

Multi-spousal de facto marriage have always been legal in the US, and last I heard they still were. The US marriage laws were brought about at the insistence of the Catholic Church who had influence over many of the civil leaders in the past. That's why so many of the past US leaders picked on the Mormons for not abiding by the same marriage rules as the Catholic Church pushed. The real oddity being the way the US government jumped on them when they were in Utah and it was still a territory with no federal marriage laws applying to it. But, hey, the US political system has always been full of people abusing power for their personal reasons or profit.

Crumbly Writer

@cave jug

Atheism is NOT a religion, it is not a place where we congregate, chant the songs or confess our indiscretions to our friend upstairs, our judge, jury and the executioner, collect the money for the Pat Robertsons or Jerry Follwels of some other nut whom we blindly follow, a place where belief in rational logical and numinous is suspended and the myth of goat herding tribe of the past long forgotten let into our souls to be "saved" from the ills our supposed maker has endowed each and every one of us.

Ha-ha, run on sentences anyone?

Again, I've got to add a counter vote. If you ever read my Catalyst story, you'll know my stance on religion, but I've found a very nice home for my atheism in the UU (Unitarian Universalist) church. You don't have to believe in God to be spiritual. There might not be an external force governing life, but many of us prefer to believe that good eventually wins, just because it makes us better people.

In that regard, atheism often becomes its own religion. If treated in the same way (with a sense of absolutism, continual hawking and attacking anyone who doesn't agree with you), it ends up being just as bad as the organized religions. And listening to similar calls for action on the internet is just as bad as the echo chambers of church services.

What we need, more than anything else, are people who listen to each other rather than preaching to each other. Forgiveness is a vital element, though often ignored in most Christian churches.

That said, atheism is a very personal decision, and what motivates one atheist will rarely work for everyone else.

Replies:   cave jug
El_Sol

Interesting.

To address one point though... the so-called 'Gay Agenda' must penetrate the standard religions to their core.

Whatever the world 'should be', it is NOT a place of 'live and let live'. Religion in defining Act A, and really Person A, as sinful/evil/other is a definitive cause of the world not being a 'live and let live' place.

Therefore if you are 'other' in a religious context, such as gay people, your rights and possibly your person will always be in danger. I do not see them as striving for 'better rights than others' but as trying to dismantle the foundations in certain institutions which directly and indirectly promote discrimination.

For better or worse, religion is a huge part of the world -- gay people will never be equal while major religions stand against them.

Replies:   Dominion's Son
Dominion's Son

@El_Sol

gay people will never be equal while major religions stand against them.


If you imagine that you can get rid of religion you are delusional.

If you imagine that you can convince any religion to change it's stance on gay people by being deliberately hostile, you are delusional.

I support SSM, I support equal rights in general, but I think some of the tactics being employed by some gay rights activists will be counter productive in the long run.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer

@Dominion's Son

I support equal rights in general, but I think some of the tactics being employed by some gay rights activists will be counter productive in the long run.

Are you kidding? While blacks have been discriminated against for hundreds of years, and Jews have for thousands of years, the gays went from furtive meetings in men's rooms to open acceptance in only a few dozen years. No one is discussing whether gay should be stoned anymore (at least in the developed nations), instead they argue over whether they should have access to areas (incorrectly) assumed to belong to religious groups (marriages).

And the transgendered seem to have slipped in under the radar. Only a few years ago, anyone caught cross dressing would be publicly humiliated, and now we cheer someone undergoing sex change surgery on television.

Maybe blacks would get a little more sympathy if the men all walked around in dresses? (By the way, that's not an attack on trans folk, but an attack on our continued failure to treat blacks with basic human rights.)

Ernest Bywater
Updated:

@Crumbly Writer

CW,

I think the comment about some tactics being counter productive is very valid because when some people get pushed too hard they shove back very hard. From the media reports I've seen over the years I have the impression some of the areas of the US (outside the old Confederate states) where they have significant issues with the black / white confrontation today are due, in a large extent, to the hard pushing by groups like the Black Panthers in those areas back in the 70s etc. I'd have to do a lot more research to be sure, but I've not got the time or inclination to do it.

Sure people being picked on need to push back and fight for their rights, but they need to be aware excessive actions will get a reaction and lose them support from the fence sitters.

edited to correct a typo - to > too

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@Ernest Bywater

Exactly.

Dominions Son

@Crumbly Writer

Are you kidding? While blacks have been discriminated against for hundreds of years, and Jews have for thousands of years, the gays went from furtive meetings in men's rooms to open acceptance in only a few dozen years.


No, I am not. The religious right is already gearing up to push back HARD. There is a bill in congress right now being pushed by several Republicans that would prohibit any prosecution of someone for anti-gay actions taken on a religious motive.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/10/more-criticism-of-the-first-amendment-defense-act-from-the-right/

If the courts read it as broadly as possible, it could end up legalizing murdering gays.

Push the religious right too hard and they will try to push for constitutional amendments to roll back everything gays have won.

Push hard enough and many of the current fence sitters will support them.

cave jug
Updated:

@Crumbly Writer

Come on ,CW,

you are smarter then that. Now we are talking about spirituality, another overrated virtue! And where did you find it? Not in your soul, your thoughts and your morning jog around a lake, but in a fucking church, UU or some-such, seeking approval with and from like-minded people, unsure of the uniqueness of your own feelings! A tribal act of a mammal I'd say. That is what it is. And it is fine, really, could not be happier for you. You are free to choose, congregate, believe or not believe, it's in The Constitution.

I NEVER questioned that and I never will!

I am "blue' in the face repeating the obvious.

The history of abuse humanity suffered,struggle to keep the church from meddling in our daily lives and the only way I know how, it is to ridicule it's stories, supposed "facts" the history of it's deeds and more importantly the present danger from the horde of lunatics we have freed from the shackles of oppression in the countries they were born. How we are being re-payed for the kindness, it is buy holding us hostage, blackmail and ever-present fear when we step outside. NO Sir, faith is not a virtue, not something to admire but the opposite. Listen carefully while a believer is professing, down the line there is a dark and dangerous detail, given the right conditions, would strike out and wreck havoc. It has happen and it will happen again.

"Ha-ha, run on sentences anyone?" I must be possessed.

Marry Webster Dictionary:

atheism

noun athe·ism ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm

1. archaic : ungodliness, wickedness

2. a : a disbelief in the existence of deity

b : the doctrine that there is no deity

See atheism defined for kids

...the belief that there is no God

Now is that clear? IT IS NOT A RELIGION. I submit it to your perusal.

Yes, I have read your Catalyst, and your or anyones stance on religion is NOT an issue, here. All of us started this exchange from a premise or a possibility of increased court cases for a group of people trying to have what the majority enjoy. All this time we are too-ing and fro-ing because of the source of the difficulties humanity will always have. Fucking, organized , RELIGION!!!!

To think or wish to eradicate religion is silly at best. It will never happen, it should not happen or attempted to. None of us are, nor will ever be, ready to DIE! Every cell of our being wants and needs to live. Forever. That is why, psychology describes our need for everlasting existence and religion provides that to great many on this rock of ours.

The fact is that each and everyone of us has a finite days as living beings does not sit well with the majority. Hence, wishful thinking, and endless prayers to the lord.

I'll be nasty again, I just can not help myself, one can get the same result if one gets down on his/her knees in the garden and talks to a gnome!

With this, I will bow out of this discussion, thread. It has been enlightening, learned few things, confirmed many. It' time for my chem-o- therapy, and that is a bastard of thing. I'm sick afterwards for days, just to prolong the misery on this planet by a month or two. Such is will to live!

Cheers to all of you.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@cave jug

2. a : a disbelief in the existence of deity

b : the doctrine that there is no deity


Bold added by me for emphasis.

The very definition you use says atheism is a system of belief and has doctrine - ergo, it's a religion, just one that doesn't recognise a God. Because it's what someone believes, it's a religion.

Replies:   garymrssn  one_wise_man
garymrssn
Updated:

@Ernest Bywater

Just to carry a point to its extreme conclusion;

Due to the physiology of the human body, the brain has no direct access to the physical world outside of the body. The mind must accept on faith that the information transmitted by nervous system is true and accurate.

My point,based on the preceding information, is if belief in anything equates to religion, then all humans are religious based on their physiology.

I think what we have is a lack of an absolute definition of religion, assuming one would be accepted by the general population.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@garymrssn

Due to the physiology of the human body, the brain has no direct access to the physical world outside of the body. The mind must accept on faith that the information transmitted by nervous system is true and accurate.


The nervous system has a direct link to the brain, and thus an extension of it, this is also true of the fingers eyes etc. Thus your conclusion breaks down due to them being directly linked.

Replies:   garymrssn
garymrssn

@Ernest Bywater

If I had said "direct link" I would have to agree with you. That is why I said "direct access". Perhaps I should have said "direct contact".
The brain must trust the the other components of nervous system to provide factual information. The brain is connected to the rest of the nervous system, not to the outside world.

one_wise_man

@Ernest Bywater

Dear Sir,
putting a word in bold to emphasize your point is the way to do it, however, one needs to pick the right one. The operative word is "deity" not disbelief or doctrine. Grammar of English is not a trifle matter. It's admirable, sticking out for your 'beliefs' in this exchange with others. One point is glaringly obvious to an observer though, not once you addressed the points someone called "cavejug_1 was trying to raise. You were dodging the assertions by picking irrelevant points and words, never responding to the challenges directly brought up. Strange, however, understandable. Your professing and desire for fairness and equality for all, has been eroded by the very strong current of religiosity you are trying to hide.
Live long and prosper.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@one_wise_man

I bolded the words relevant to the main point under discussion in the sub thread; in one it was: what identifies atheism as a religion. You do not have to believe in a deity for it to be a religion (which is a belief structure). In another it was on aspects relevant to equal rights and abusive pushes for more than equal rights. I did deliberately ignore the rants against certain churches intended to start a flame war because a flame war would detract from the thread instead of adding to it. I did that because they weren't that relevant to what this thread is about and were the posters personal opinions, which he's entitled to have as an opinion. If you or cavejug_1 wish to start another thread to discuss other abuses by past abuses by those in power, be it politicians or church leaders, feel free to do so and I'll participate when I wish to.

BTW If you take the time to read all of my posts at this forum and its predecessor, you'll see I've often said past church leaders have abused the people for their own gain, but that's not what this thread is about, despite the thread drift so far.

Replies:   one_wise_man
Crumbly Writer

Cavejug, not to get into a definition war with you, but while all Christians believe in God for one reason (not to go to hell), and all atheists have their own reason for not believing in God. But there are essentially two types of atheists (and I know quite a few). There are a very small handful who are radical, who argue against the existence of Any religion, and then there are those who simply don't believe in God themselves, but really don't care what others believe.

Technically, I doubt any of us would really call atheism a religion, simply because it's SO badly organized, but your over-the-top response borders on the fanaticism you're arguing against, and thus you sound as bad as any other religious fanatic (i.e. you demand that everyone else believe just as you do).

As I said, after speaking publicly about atheists, people I've known from a long time have approached me about their own beliefs. If you don't think there are many atheists, you just haven't given them an opportunity to safely discuss their beliefs. But, most believe, just as you do cavejug, that fanaticism is a problem. However, they just choose not to add to the hatred in the world.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@Crumbly Writer

I doubt any of us would really call atheism a religion, simply because it's SO badly organized


CW,

The atheist simply aren't as organised as the Catholics, that's all. I think they're more like the Wiccans in that each has their own take with a few agreed points.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer

@Ernest Bywater

The point is, everyone judges atheists in general on the few aggressive atheists, because they never see all the others, who prefer to remain in the background. Thus everyone underestimates the movement. They're actually easier to relate to if you understand where they stand, and they're more numerous than anyone believes.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater  p0ps
Ernest Bywater

@Crumbly Writer

I've never doubted how numerous the atheist are, as I've never doubted how many people believe in God but refuse to get involved with the organised churches. The only thing is being unorganised they don't have a set written central doctrine, but when you talk to them as individuals you find out many have the same core beliefs of the others in their group. Both are large silent groups.

tppm

IMHO atheism (the unreasoned belief in the unprovable assertion that no gods exist) is just as just as much a religious stance as theism (the unreasoned belief in the unprovable assertion that gods, or some particular god or group of gods exist (and probably are running things)). Since both positions are unprovable, by definition, than holding either is unreasoned, and therefor a religion.

The reasoned position on this is agnosticism, the reasoned assertion of ignorance as to the existence of god or gods, and if any do exist, which one(s).

Tim Merrigan, agnostic Wiccan.

Replies:   El_Sol
El_Sol
Updated:

@tppm

-- Tim Merrigan, agnostic Wiccan.

Can I be ElSol, The Agnostic Catholic... Unless The Pope Calls For The Streets To Run With The Blood Of The Unbelievers In Which Case I Will Be First In Line To Do Some Smiting?

Ooh -- Halloween is coming up!!!

one_wise_man
Updated:

@Ernest Bywater

Well Sir,

with utmost respect, I disagree with you. Once again you are moving the goalposts of this debate.

You have made an assertion at the very top of this page, then couple of counter-claims were made by others. When I went to school 50+ years ago, the basic and essential rules of a debate or a discussion, exchange of views or whatever one wants to call it was that, a rebuttal must address the counter-claim brought up by an opponent, intent being to support and strengthen your own position, was it not, Sir?

Instead, you did not just stuck to your guns, you repeatedly asked us to go back and read your submission, as that was somehow going to clear-up your stance. I did, twice and it does NOT clear up a thing. You have broken every rule in a exchange of opinions. No debate requires a win just for sake of wining. A debate is a tool to open up to the views and thoughts of others, regardless how uncomfortable they may have been. It is not meant to be a bullying forum to drive it down for mass consumption even when an opponent strays, makes erroneous and unsubstantiated remarks. It is not meant to be a soap box to shout from. Louder you are, less and less of us will hear you.

To quote you, " I did deliberately ignore the rants against certain churches intended to start a flame war because a flame war would detract from the thread instead of adding to it." And that is for our benefit, right? How noble of you.. You Sir are dodging an issue! To discus an issue is precisely the point of a debate. You live in a country where the free speech is guaranteed in writing, are you not? But we must not insult a church or three, and there is the crucks of it. In this country you can get away with anything, just by prefacing you name with a word "Reverend". ( Read what the vile toad by the name of Jerry Fallwell said after 9/11, and you can get a glimpse of filth and bigotry from the fathful!

As a spices, humanity would not get this far if it was not for accommodating and cooperating with others, modifying our own prejudices, rules and very often, rigid and unshakable. So often with great pain and, sadly, spilled blood. Think of struggle the African-Americans went through and, if you are honest with yourself, still do, as we speak, struggle to scrape a living and have a meal every day like you or I. Or native Americans, who were slaughtered by the millions, driven from their land into the poorest and least productive reservations. We have done it, because, god was on our side. How often do you hear, openly bigoted a racist remarks even though, segregation is "behind us" and should not be brought up, today. Being silent about it, is a tacit approval. Same with the religion.

You are not throwing stones at your neighbor for mowing his/her lawn (yard) on Sundays, you do not have a slave or two in your shed, working for you around the clock or have a fit when you happen to smell fish being cooked on BBQ next door on Fridays, do you?

There was an attempt to point out difficulty gays and any other minorities have in our society. Religious dogma leads the way; like it or not that is where resistance to it is coming from and the only resort these people have are the courts. You would not address the possibility of it, let alone anything else.

Bertrand Russell said ""The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." And that was someone we oath to take notice of, wouldn't you say?

It is a fact of life, Sir, older we get, more set and uncompromising, we become, somehow we a 'sure' life owes us something, for we are old a wise. On the contrary.

" Eyes are useless when mind is blind" late George Carlin have said. I tend to agree with him.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@one_wise_man

This isn't a formal debate. I made some comments on a news report and some of exchanged views on that. During that process more information that wasn't in the report was provide and it was discussed. The initial post was about increasing litigation on the same sex marriage issue.

There was a little bit of thread drift to deal with some other news reports and equal rights discussion. However, the first post by Cavejug_1 was an anti-church rant on 7 Sept 2015 of:

Quote
Hi there to all of you. With interest and an evil grin on my face I went through all of the exchange here. It is 21st Century and most of you are clinging to the bronze age myths of Palestine. The church was and will always be against the change in society. It diminishes their stranglehold and the power they have. Throughout human history it opposed the medicine, astronomy, biology and any natural science. What you are discussing is rotten and should be shelved just like Zeus, Thor, Poseidon and thousands other gods we realized were bullshit. And for some weird reason many still believe and cling to it like overgrown children on a mothers tit. Morality can not be taken from the most violent collection of stories of genocide, racism, homophobia. Get back on track and get rid of the bastards who want to chain humanity to logic and reason of the desert. Why would I or any of you care who fucks whom. And why would a gay couple want to wed in the church? It's a contradiction you may have a debate about, only if you manage to through off the chains some of you are shackled with.
End quote

To which I responded that my point in this thread was about hypocrisy and not a discussion on the contents of the rant. Cavejug's next post is another rant on Sept 9 and accuses me of calling him something I didn't, to which I responded. Followed by a post by cavejug on 10 sept claiming the debate had degenerated, when he hadn't yet entered the original debate. And contains another anti-church rant. His next post on 11 Sept is another anti-church rant. Despite the refusal of myself, and others, to enter into a detailed exchange on his opinion of the churches. However, on 11 Sept I did respond to some of his comments on the church where he has errors of fact.

In every post he's made he's made he's had anti-church rants. When he couldn't get us to warp the thread over into a rant against organised churches he got upset about the information atheism is a religious belief system as well.

At no point has cavejug entered into the debate this thread is about, so it's not possible to have lost any debate. he chose to go on about a subject not part of the threads original post and we've not descended to his level. At no point have I presented or promoted any religious dogma, so his claims of such, and yours just prove how hard it is for you to understand the word used in the posts - or how distorted a view you have.

I begin to wonder if you are cavejug using a different log on ID or a close friend of cavejug, due to the difficulties in understanding the posts. However, to make a few things very clear to you, I'll reiterate them:

1. I have no problems with same sex marriage laws.

2. I have no problems with everyone, including minorities of any sort, have equal rights to everyone else.

3. I do not condone, and never have condone, the abuse of power or position done in by people in the past or today.

4. I do seriously object to legislation and court activity that gives one group, any group, superior rights to another group because that is bigotry.

5. I strenuously object to anyone pushing their view or beliefs on others against their will - in short, I hate fanatics of all stripes.

I've stated those points at various points in the posts above, so if you see things differently to that, it's your problem and not mind, and caused by your view of the world being distorted in some way.

Replies:   madnige  one_wise_man
madnige
Updated:

@Ernest Bywater

Hear Hear!

However,


I hate fanatics of all stripes.


-- I don't hate fanatics, just pity them, unless they are trying to impose their views on me.

The only situation where I think some should have different rights to others is that if some abrogate their responsibilities they should lose associated rights.

richardshagrin

The courts are not the only method. There is politics (from the Greek poly for many and ticks for blood sucking insects) but that approach may be a very long term approach as many Representatives and Senators are convinced the other way, or believe their supporters (voters) are. There is also civil disobedience. And violence. Of the options, courts may be superior even for the side that does not win. Terrorists prefer violence to legal actions, but then if they win they turn out to be freedom fighters.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater
Updated:

@richardshagrin


Terrorists prefer violence to legal actions, but then if they win they turn out to be freedom fighters.


Thread drift alert:

Freedom fighters attack targets of strategic and tactical military value, such as military bases and forces, and only such targets. Buildings for major political meetings, such the congress meeting hall, can also be classed as a valid target.

Terrorists attack civilians and other soft unarmed targets that have no military value at all. Sometimes a few will attack small military units, but only when they have them out numbered, and usually with concealed explosives.

edit to fix missed words

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer

@Ernest Bywater

Freedom fighters attack targets of strategic and tactical military value, such as military bases and forces, and only such targets. Buildings for major political meetings, such the congress meeting hall, can also be classed as a valid target.

Terrorists attack civilians and other soft unarmed targets that have no military value at all. Sometimes a few will attack small military units, but only when they have them out numbered, and usually with concealed explosives.

Luckily, atheists don't plant bombs, mostly because they can't believe in anything they can't see (once it's planted). (Sorry, very weak joke.)

p0ps

@Crumbly Writer

christain are judge the same way

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer

@p0ps

christain are judge the same way

.
You're right, all my Christian friends tell terrible jokes. ;P

richardshagrin

My theory about terrorists and "freedom fighters" is that the winners get to write the history. A lot of things done in the American Revolution circa 1778 to 1783 (not entirely sure of the dates) were from the point of view of the Tories to whom they happened were terrorism. Which is one of the reasons a lot of them moved to Canada where it was safe. There were other reasons as well, as the winners were punitive to the supporters of the crown. And there was violence against supporters of the revolution until it was successful enough that loyalists were not in a position to act. Who does what in war is not certain until the shooting ends and we see who won, if anyone. Lets talk WW2, now 70 years or more in the past. Aerial bombardment of cities was done by both sides, but most effectively by the allies. Consider atomic bombing or firestorms at Dresden or Tokyo. Under what used to be the laws of war, no harm except perhaps inadvertently (stray cannonballs) to civilians, either side's bombing would be unacceptable. Funny, the losers went to the War Crimes trials. Not that much or all of what they were prosecuted for was not actionable, but there were things done on both sides reasonable observers would criticize. The attack on Pearl Harbor was a surprise to the garrison, but I understand the Japanese Embassy in Washington was translating the declaration earlier that morning and the intent to declare war before the attack was there. There are war crimes and message transmission errors, depending on who writes the history.

What the terrorists do is sometimes called non-symmetrical warfare. They don't have conventional forces to oppose us tank to tank or division to division, and when Sadam had them they were easily defeated. So they use unconventional warfare, going after soft targets. The twin towers in NYC were only relatively soft, if they had antiaircraft artillery or missiles they probably would not have been destroyed. If they win, and destroy our armed forces and government, they get to write the history, and whatever they did likely will be "justified" while our use of whatever force we use will be war crimes. Depending on who we elect, perhaps it will be nuclear weapons again, after 70 years. I am 70, my planning horizon gets shorter every year, but I am not an optimist. Pessimists (realists) are seldom disappointed. Sometimes happily surprised. Lets hope so.

El_Sol

Do we hate fanatics who are right? Or does the rightness of their cause make them not fanatics? Who gets to decide whether one is a fanatic?

'Cause I am betting some abolitionists were called 'fanatics', I would probably go so far as to call some of them fanatics myself, but I am also going to go with they were right.

Dominions Son

@richardshagrin

Pessimists (realists) are seldom disappointed.


The pessimist thinks the glass is half empty.

The optimist thinks the glass is half full.

The realist knows the glass is always completely full. It's just a matter of what it is full of. A glass that was truly half empty would implode violently because it isn't strong enough to hold a vacuum.

Replies:   JohnBobMead
JohnBobMead

@Dominions Son

And the MBA sees the glass as a candidate for downsizing, because it's twice as large as needed. That, or the person responsible for filling the glass is underperforming and should be reprimanded.

madnige
Updated:

@richardshagrin


if they had antiaircraft artillery or missiles they probably would not have been destroyed.


The first plane would have hit as there would have been total disbelief of impact until after it happened. The second probably too, as it would take time to mobilize the AA crews; even if AA was used, it would only drop the wreckage somewhere populated - unless the presence of AA caused a different target to be chosen - perhaps a sports stadium (e.g., see Wes Boyd's 'Magic Carpet' ch 31).

Actually, I think Microsoft bears some responsibility for the Towers being chosen: in the earliest MS flight simulator prog, trying to fly through the towers was about the only thing you could do unless you added pay options for airports and landscape.

one_wise_man

@Ernest Bywater

Dear Sir,
it is exasperating and it seems impossible to exchange an opinion with you, unless it coincides with your assertion. I happen to disagree with your stance and as such it is flatly rejected by you. No matter though, I've said what I needed to say, in my humble view, just as late Christopher Hitchens pointed out in his last contribution, before he died, to the sane and free thinkers, "God is not great_ how religion poisons everything". It is a very good read, believe it or not, so, if you 'force' yourself to see his point of view by reading it, it may broaden your horizons. I'm not holding my breath, though.

Your latest write up, stresses that discussion on religion is "out of bounce", something, you've acknowledged as an "anti-church rant" by cavejug_1, myself and, tentatively, one or two other contributors. The point being, the hassle we, as a spices, have had, that religion stifles any attempt by humanity to sideline it or remove or reduce its influence it has on our political life. This country is notoriously shackled by the so called "faith."

Having said that, I am not going to continue further then this except point up, on this page, "cavejug_1", mentioned chemotherapy, it sounded to me, he is a cancer sufferer, and in turn, that means I am not "him" as you suspect. Good day to you.

Dominions Son

@JohnBobMead

A Lawyer would sue the glass maker as clearly it must be leaking and is therefore defective. :)

Replies:   richardshagrin
Dominions Son

@JohnBobMead

A Microsoft Tech Support person would suggest rebooting the glass to see if that fixes the problem.

richardshagrin

@Dominions Son

An insurance underwriter would exclude coverage for any problem with the glass and insist that a warning be attached where it is clearly visible.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@richardshagrin

A mathematician would try to create the perfect formula to describe the glass. By the time he finished he would be so enthralled with the beauty of his formula that he will have completely forgotten that a real glass exists.

richardshagrin
Updated:

The psychiatrist would insist the glass would need to want to be filled. (Stolen from how many ? would it take to change a light bulb.) There are probably as many of these "jokes" as there are occupations, but lets try to keep it closer to the theme of the topic. How many religious who perform same sex marriages would want the glass to have wine in it?

Replies:   madnige  Dominions Son
madnige

@richardshagrin

How many religious who perform same sex marriages would want the glass to have wine in it?


Both of them.

Replies:   Joe_Bondi_Beach  tppm
Ernest Bywater
Updated:

@richardshagrin

In the past the outcomes were reported well after the facts by the winners, but since about the 1960s the fights have been fought with reporters and TV cameras right there.

However, the distinction I make is clear, people who use unconventional warfare like IEDs against valid military targets like military convoys are freedom fighters or insurgents or soldiers of some sort. While those who set bombs in schools, shopping centres and parks or fire explosive rockets into residential areas with the sole aim of killing unarmed civilians are murdering terrorists. The grey area in the rocket firing is when others fire back at the launch sites of the initial rocket launchers - then you'll find the terrorist have set up in another residential area in the hopes no one will fire back at them there; and thus show they don't care about the lives of their supporters either.

BTW The wording of the Hague and Geneva Conventions was such that it placed restrictions on signatories in regards to certain aspects of warfare between signatory partners, if either side wasn't a signatory then the convention didn't apply to the situation, and if one side breached the convention the other side was then exempted from having to comply. Neither Germany or Japan signed Convention 14 on bombing, and thus it had no application to them or those fighting them.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Ernest Bywater

@one_wise_man

I see you still want to move this discussion on equal rights and abuse of equal rights into a flame war on past abuses by those in power who claimed it was justified by religion, and like the earlier posts I'm not playing your game to move way over into left field in a major thread drift. So please take you rants and go home. As I've repeatedly said, I never supported religious abuse and have always supported equal rights for all - but even that simple statement seems unable to filter through your blinders that assumes all who don't support your anti-religious sentiments must be a religious nut.

Replies:   one_wise_man
one_wise_man

@Ernest Bywater

Dear Sir,
You are a waisting oxygen on this planet. Talking about stubbornness. And you do not have basic manners either. Good thing, you want be around forever.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@one_wise_man

Well, Mr Pot, we know the colour is black. However, the only waste by me is the time taken to type replies to your idiocies. Unlike you, I've managed to provide a lot of people some entertainment with the stories I write. I'm also not afraid to use my real name here, nor am I worried about what your delusional mind thinks of me.

Replies:   tppm  one_wise_man
Dominions Son

@richardshagrin

Stolen from how many ? would it take to change a light bulb.


How many mice would it take to screw in a light bulb.

Two, but don't ask me how they got in the light bulb. :)

Crumbly Writer

@one_wise_man

One_wise_man, I think I must object to your characterisation of Ernest (in the discussions which I too took part in). The discussion was not an 'anti-religion' manifest. Instead, cavejug didn't seem to be willing to discuss the subject without vilifying religions cart blanche. Ernest and I weren't saying he 'couldn't speak', simply that he needed to respond to issues that others brought up.

Ernest and I have disagreed about many things in the past, and while it often boils down to each of us being set in our ways and/or misinterpreting what was said, the discussions are generaly considered.

I'd rather you not depart (the forum) in haste. Generally, when a discussion turns personal (i.e. his accusing you of being someone else because you both object to his points), the best bet is to simply quit following that thread. Many threads cease being productive when everyone digs in their heels, refusing to compromise. But that doesn't mean that those people aren't welcome in the forum. It just means that the issue has been talked to death and everyone is sick and tired of it. (There are many more battles to be fought, on many other issues, than for anyone to pick up their blocks are march off.)

Replies:   one_wise_man
Crumbly Writer

@Ernest Bywater

I agree with Ernest, there IS a clear demarcation between 'legitimate' warfare/revolt/rebellion and 'terrorism', and that includes attacks on civilians. During the bombings on London and Germany, the attacks were made to hamper the countries economy, hurting their ability to conduct war as much as they were to make the war unpopular with the civilians (i.e. it was more economic than terroristic). In a terrorist attack, though, the attempt is to get media attention, rather than to make a political point.

Instead, I'll postulate (having just watched the 25th rebroadcast of the Civil War series), that the atrosities of WWII were similar to those in the Civil War where the technologies of war so vastly outstripped the old that the results were utter devastation. While carpet bombings and the destruction of entire cities was highly offensive, such actions have largely become criminal acts. (In this case, our massive drone bombing campaign doesn't mark the resumption of carpet bombings, but instead marks another example of war technology overcoming common sense/survival instincts.

The world doesn't view the American Revoultion as a 'terrorist act' because it held meaning for EVERY country controlled by the British at the time, and the civil experiments concerning 'new forms of government' helped expand the thoughts of most world leaders.

The American Civil War is considered a 'rebellion' because it exemplified NO new ideas, but was simply a matter of 'we don't want to change and you can't force us to bow to public opinion'.

The only 'idea' behind the current terrorist conflicts is that 'the West hates every Muslim' and 'wasn't life much better 1,000 years ago when no one had anything?'. I'm not sure that either one qualifies as a valid basis for a new form of government.

By the way, OWM, "You are a waisting oxygen on this planet"? If you can't formulate your own thoughts, how do you anticipate convincing anyone of your points?

Personally, I think the thread-drift has gotten especially bad on this thread, as the current rants about governments and/or religions have little to do with the points broached by the initial post. So I think it's time we retired the thread and get on to more 'literary' pursuits.

Joe_Bondi_Beach
Updated:

@madnige


How many religious who perform same sex marriages would want the glass to have wine in it?

Both of them.


Short answer: Lots. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/02/where-christian-churches-stand-on-gay-marriage/.

bb

Replies:   madnige
madnige

@Joe_Bondi_Beach

OK, sorry, flippant answer from lightbulb jokes intended to highlight the low numbers. From the link you gave there do seem to be many religions supporting gay marriage, but I notice that the real heavyweights are in the 'not' column.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer

@madnige

My church, Unitarian Universalits or "UU" for short, have had a long and humorous association. Supporting religions of all sorts (the "Universalist" creed that 'all religions' have something to teach), they've long supported the full LGBT community, only they were preaching this to empty space, as most had few 'open' members.

Luckily, that's slowly changed. I'm not sure whether it's people learning about this small church, or more people coming out to wider groups, but my current small church (only about 20 to 30 regular members, which vary by season), we now have a decent representation (strangely, it's mostly lesbian with only a single gay member).

'Gay' acceptance has followed a strange track. While blacks have NEVER gained widespread acceptance (because every ethnic groups plea for acceptance is "But we're not black!"), the gay community has slowly won over people by personal association. While few 'whites' associate with other ethnic groups, virtually every family has a LGBT member. They got off to a slow start as few were openly coming out, but as more and more did, larger segments of the population were represented.

What's more, if you have a Hispanic friend, you may get along with them until they move along, but you don't march with them. With family members, once you've had a gay brother/son or a lesbian mother/daughter, they remains concerned with the moment their entire lives. It's an entirely different dynamic.

The key to 'fitting in' has always been melting into the predominant culture. Because of skin color, blacks have never been able to do this (on a large scale). Other groups eventually do, given enough time. However, gays manage to cross ALL other ethnic lines, so they touch everyone equally, liberal or conservative, rich or poor.

tppm

@Ernest Bywater

Earnest, you're doing a piss poor job of avoiding a flame war. Just stop feeding the troll.

Replies:   one_wise_man
tppm

@madnige

How many religious who perform same sex marriages would want the glass to have wine in it?

Both of them.


I can't speak for any of the others, but mine, Wicca, would, except for alcoholics and underage participants and guests, of course.

one_wise_man

@tppm

Thank you mate,
a new badge to pin on my chest and I'll gladly do it. Troll! Thank you. For the issue I am fighting for I'll make sure what you have given me, is very bright and always shiny.

one_wise_man
Updated:

@Crumbly Writer

Thank you CW,

as you can see plainly, my opponent and I could not agree to disagree. Stating my opinion on my belief that the source of many prejudices, which by the way, I did not invent, history has proven and stands firm on conclusions of the kind, is digressing from the thread, while the scores of other comments ware brought up have differed from initial statement do not classify as such. Frankly, I never cared much, my mistake in this, I let myself get to personal, got sucked in a lost cause, lost my cool and ended up where I did not wanted to be. Such is life. I clearly do not belong in this conversation, since my beliefs are strong on certain subjects for which I can not apologize, nor I want to. After all, what makes us individuals is ability to think, reason, use the gray cells ' the 'lord has given me' and not let anyone to spoon feed us. I do not take my moral code in tablet form.

Being such an opinionated bustard, I obviously can not contribute to this forum in an acceptable and positive manner, so I do bow out with little dignity I am left with.

Cheers.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer

@one_wise_man

OWM (one_wise_man), don't feel bad. We've each lost our cool in one thread or another, saying things we regret. It's fairly natural, as we venture into topics which strike a little close to home.

In his defense, Ernest clearly stated he agrees with the abuses of the church, but he focused on your defense of atheism, which came across a little 'unyielding'.

I've had to quit many threads, but that doesn't mean the participants will respond the same way in other threads (although some people just seem to grate on each other).

Again, don't take this disagreement to mean that you aren't welcome here, just that you and Ernest got off on the wrong foot (wait until the next battle to label him a troll ;P).

Replies:   one_wise_man
one_wise_man
Updated:

@Crumbly Writer

Just to clear up, "tppm" has labeled ME as a troll, I would not call Ernest or anyone a name like that. I do not take it personally though, I suspect the word used here is to categorize me as provocateur for a provocation sake. I rather think of it as being an ugly beast, as such, would draw attention to itself and be engaged. End I would be a very formidable troll too.

I am contradicting myself, by adding these lines, but intention to withdraw is a disappointment that a facts I have tried to bring into were not worth acknowledging, let alone being agreed with. I have let myself think there is a forum I could go to and participate in, without a need to conform and agree to a premise of others. Somehow, being one of the "flock" having a "shepherd" reduced me to a "bleating" individual.

I do not just defend the merits of atheism I actively fight for it. Lets acknowledge this at least if I may. Only in a secular State the freedom of religion IS guarantied.

Thanks again. re-edited because of a spelling omission in the last sentence.)

richardshagrin

@one_wise_man

Unless you live under a bridge you are not a troll.

If you cross the bridge you may have to pay a toll. Perhaps the entity that collects the toll is a troll.

(Read or had far too many fairytales read to me at an early, or at least earlier age.)

Crumbly Writer

@one_wise_man

I have let myself think there is a forum I could go to and participate in, without a need to conform and agree to a premise of others.

Unfortunately, this is a problem with anonymity on the internet, and is not the problem of any individual forum or site. Trolls (people who's only interest in disrupting and destroying a site's reputation) exist on most sites. We really don't have any here, but we labels people trolls when they set out to attack individuals or belittle other people without contributing themselves.

The only 'safe' Forum I've discovered is LinkedIn, mainly because you use your name, and any future employee will search for anything you say (people use their real names). As such, people attack one another rarely. However, this forum is much more specific to the types of writing we do on SOL.

tppm

@one_wise_man

but intention to withdraw is a disappointment that facts I have tried to bring into were not worth acknowledging,


No problem, if what you had introduced had been facts, rather than unprovable dogma.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer  xman
Crumbly Writer

@tppm

Play nice, boys.

richardshagrin

I wish this topic would go away. It is so far from the ideas it started with. Some kind of topic creep. Lets not be creeps to each other.

xman

@tppm

Consider the following:

"If Bible is your Science, History and Philosophy book.... then you grasp neither Science, History nor Philosophy."

Never under estimate the power of stupid people in large numbers.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@xman


"If Bible is your Science, History and Philosophy book.... then you grasp neither Science, History nor Philosophy."


To absolutely accept or absolutely deny something without proper research and evaluation is the greatest stupidity there is.

Quote below is from:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament#Literary_evaluations

he Old Testament is considered one of the most important and influential works of literature in world literature, and has provided inspiration for writers (both religious and secular) throughout subsequent history. In 1886, Friedrich Nietzsche wrote: "In the Jewish Old Testament, there are men, things and speeches in so grand a style that Greek and Indian literature have nothing to compare to it. One stands with awe and reverence before these tremendous remnants of what man once was... The taste for the Old Testament is a touchstone of "greatness" and "smallness". To have glued this New Testament, a kind of rococo of taste in every respect, to the Old Testament to form one book... that is perhaps the greatest audacity and sin against the spirit that Europe has on its conscience

end quote

This wiki article also gives information on how accurate and useful some of the information in the Bible is to historical research.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_archaeology

This one is a bit more biased.

http://www.prevailmagazine.org/how-archaeology-proves-the-bible/

..................

What is surprising is how the various churches have come up with so much doctrine that isn't in the books of the Bible at all, and how much is distorted to suit the church leadership position at some point. The abuses like this and by the leaders are caused by people after power, not what's actually in the words of the Bible itself.

The Old Testament is mostly historical accounts of events and families with some rules on how to safely live day to day. Also in there is the creation story / myth and a little doctrine on how to behave and get on with people. The New Testament is mostly another historical account of people and families, with some letters containing practical advice for running the church at that time added to it, along with a couple of odd books few really understand what they mean (if anyone does).

............

In my opinion, it's people accepting what the church leaders (of any church) say as being direct from God that causes most of the troubles past and present, and the next biggest cause are those who give a total rejection of everything from all churches just because it comes from a church. Then to further cause troubles are those who stand for a political party, government, or country regardless of the facts or the realities of the situation, and those who are diametrically opposite of them for the same illogical reasons.

Almost nothing in life is absolutely always good or always bad, but most people see all things as absolutely good or absolutely bad.

.................

Good research, examination, and logical thought finds most answers, resolves most problems, and can usually resolve most issues - except where one side refuses to move off their position at all.

richardshagrin
Updated:

"Good research, examination, and logical thought finds most answers, resolves most problems, and can usually resolve most issues - except where one side refuses to move off their position at all."

If only people worked that way. At least in politics it doesn't seem to. Particularly partisan approaches of left vs. right. Its a shame right is confused with correct. But the left seems to think the same about their positions, and what they need to say and do to win the next election, which always seems to be two years away or less. And both sides seem to attack people in the center. Power versus principle. Principle seems to lose.

One of the reasons medieval Poland shrank and disappeared was its legislative body where decisions had to be unanimous. Any legislator could stop any decision by casting a veto. The United States seems to getting back to this approach with funding for government operations not just at the federal level but at the State as well. Example, the State of Washington where extra sessions seem to be necessary to pass minimal government funding. Our legislature is being fined $100,000 a day by our state supreme court for not adequately funding education, which is required by the state constitution. The Governor doesn't want to order a special session to deal with the problem.

pj
Updated:

She should resign in protest.

Whatever the issues the common sense summary is that an elected official cannot refuse to follow the law. It's critical in a democracy or a state that even pretends to be a democracy. Whether the law is correct or not.

- And I do not believe the court decision is right. Civil Union / Domestic Partnership contracts would be the answer, except that it's not enough for Gays to have equal rights, what they want is to be 'Officially Approved' by EVERYONE. And they want to bully those who dont agree into submission.*

- Like Wedding photogs and cake makers. Those who cater a wedding are PARTICIPANTS in that wedding celebration. FORCING even a private business to participate in a ceremony they dont believe in is a violation of equal protections clause.

But there is a difference between exercise of religion in commerce and public service. If the Clerk was instead a private business I would agree with her.

But she isnt. She is a government official, and subject to the Law; bad law or not.

* And if you dont believe that is egregious, dust off that Old Testament and read about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Too many people think God destroyed it because of 'Bunch'a Queers'.

No. It was because of the rampant debauchery and hedonism, and the fact that the righteous were constantly assaulted by the depraved into participating in it.

If you dont agree with me, I suggest you step back and read it again. Saying it had to do mainly with Homosexuality is as bad as using the story of Onan to justify a ban on condoms and masturbation.

Whatever we're doing here... justifying it to sooth ourselves is the wrong thing to do.

Replies:   tppm  Crumbly Writer
tppm

@pj

- And I do not believe the court decision is right. Civil Union / Domestic Partnership contracts would be the answer, except that it's not enough for Gays to have equal rights, what they want is to be 'Officially Approved' by EVERYONE. And they want to bully those who don't agree into submission.*


Only if they're 100% identical to marriage. My wife and I spent 28 years in a domestic partnership, and got a $3,000 tax break the year we got married, for just one example.

* And if you don't believe that is egregious, dust off that Old Testament and read about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Too many people think God destroyed it because of 'Bunch of Queers'.

No. It was because of the rampant debauchery and hedonism, and the fact that the righteous were constantly assaulted by the depraved into participating in it.


You're, of course, assuming it happened at all. No archaeological evidence has been, definitely, found of Sodom or Gomorrah (there's one site, but it's controversial), so what actually happened there isn't known. That story was included, regardless of whether there was any truth to an actual destruction, to elucidate the limits to guest rights, to explain the salt pillars around the Dead Sea, and to rile against incest (oh, and to defame Lot's decedents, as results of incest.)

Oh, and whatever happened to Sodom and Gomorrah, if they ever existed at all, I'm sure can be adequately explained without God's intervention.

Replies:   Joe_Bondi_Beach
Crumbly Writer

@pj

And I do not believe the court decision is right. Civil Union/Domestic Partnership contracts would be the answer, except that it's not enough for Gays to have equal rights, what they want is to be 'Officially Approved' by EVERYONE. And they want to bully those who don't agree into submission.*

'Separate but Equal' has been tried in the past, and found (ultimately) to be anything but. But the key is that the churches shouldn't be in the business of creating legislation, and the State shouldn't be in the business of marrying people.

Churches can marry whoever the hell they want, and refuse whoever they want. But if you marry for legal reasons (adoptions, inheritance, spousal support), then the laws should support EVERYONE equally.

No one is forcing wedding photographers to attend gay weddings, but if you want to specialize in weddings, then you'd better focus on the damn wedding, and not who 'deserves' your services or not. Nazi Germany decided which of it's scientists 'deserved' the honor of living in their country. If they hadn't, they might have ended up with the Atomic bomb! Again, it's about equal protection of the law, and not giving one particular group (the religious, in this case), more privileges than anyone else.

By the way, think I should request that Lazeez shut down this discussion thread (and everyone involved start entirely new threads about whatever pissed them off)?

Replies:   xman
xman
Updated:

@Crumbly Writer

Well before we stop this thread and (remove the free speech) let me contribute, please.

There favorite toy of humanity was religion, is religion and always will be. It is amusing how the people who have set their minds long ago on the subject of religion, are squirming under undisputed and overwhelming evidence by our improvements as as species in last hundred years, just because, we managed to separate the church from the state and repeatedly raise the babble, sorry , Bible, as proof of unprovable. WHY? Well, there is nothing else to reach for and support their claim.

This tread, which must be said, CW is right about, is getting tiresome for all, shows how, despite the fact billions of people are religious and will be for the foreseeable future we can not employ the knowledge gained by inquiry and disputing the obvious mistakes made at one point of our evolution. Oh, another point of contention! Damn! My bad.

I, however, believe, that most of us confuse the spirituality with blind faith.

I am very grateful, god made me an atheist and relieved me of the burden by having someone who was nice enough to be tortured to death 2000 years ego, without my permission or request, so I will live forever!

Joe_Bondi_Beach

@tppm

That story was included, regardless of whether there was any truth to an actual destruction, to elucidate the limits to guest rights, to explain the salt pillars around the Dead Sea, and to rile against incest (oh, and to defame Lot's decedents, as results of incest.)


And to note, without censure, that as a matter of course Lot offered his virgin daughters to the mob in an attempt to satisfy their lust for the visiting angels.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.

garymrssn

@xman

The three worst things to bring up in conversation with people you don't know personally; Religion, Politics and Sex.
I think we had a trifecta.
This will be my last post here also.

Replies:   El_Sol
Crumbly Writer

@xman

Well before we stop this thread and (remove the free speech) let me contribute, please.

I wasn't suggesting we censor anyone, just that the thread drift had gotten so bad no one could follow any of the conversations any more. I thought we'd be better off breaking it into five or six different, more focused threads.

Replies:   one_wise_man  tppm
pj

lol.... i think I made a point. Not the one I intended to make, but seemed to have anyway.

Atheism IS a faith.

;)

Crumbly Writer

@pj

Atheism IS a faith.

The absolute faith that logic will eventually prevail.

Replies:   Dominions Son
richardshagrin

@pj

Keep on believing that, particularly if it makes you happy. You harm no one, and if they disagree, they don't need to tell you. Faith, hope and charity, and the greatest of these is charity. Amazing what you remember when you free-associate. I am free, associate with me if you want to, and I want you to, too. I won't bore you with my faith, or lack of it, if you don't with yours.

Dominions Son
Updated:

@Crumbly Writer


The absolute faith that logic will eventually prevail.


Which quite possibly makes it the most unwarranted faith of all.

Logic can not prevail in any universe that has humans in it. :)

Replies:   tppm
richardshagrin

The Star Trek Universe has Vulcans. I remember Mr. Spock pronouncing "That is not logical". So the Vulcans were, and that universe had humans in it.

Never and Always type statements can be challenged easier than most. Of course the definition of universe may assume the one we are in is the only one. I may have read and seen too much science fiction.

Replies:   Dominions Son
El_Sol
Updated:

@garymrssn

-- The three worst things to bring up in conversation with people you don't know personally;

-- Religion, Politics and Sex.

-- I think we had a trifecta.

-- This will be my last post here also.

I have two rules in adult discussion.

1. Never argue Religion

2. Recognize when the other person is talking about an Article Of Faith aka. Religion and don't argue with them.

Politics is an Article Of Faith, for just about fucking everybody.

Sex is an Article of Faith, for just about fucking everybody.

richardshagrin

@El_Sol

Good post! I like using fucking as both an adjective in the post about Politics and a verb in in the post about Sex. If you meant it as an adjective both times, but it works as a verb, too. fucking everybody. New techniques learned. And useful on SOL but not Fine Stories.

Dominions Son

@richardshagrin

The Star Trek Universe has Vulcans. I remember Mr. Spock pronouncing "That is not logical". So the Vulcans were, and that universe had humans in it.


Note: I did not say logic could not exist, I said it couldn't prevail. The logical Vulcans did not rule the Federation, nor have they converted any other races to the path of logic, so it's silly to say that logic has prevailed in the Star Trek universe.

Replies:   one_wise_man
one_wise_man

@Dominions Son

You, Sir must have been asleep, when you watched Star Track and listen to Mr Spock. He never tried to convert, he simply stated " ...that is illogical"....and without exception, was right.

Replies:   Dominions Son
one_wise_man
Updated:

@El_Sol

I love debating all three. It is imensly satisfying and rewording, makes my gray cells work overtime and tells me how much or how little my oponents know on the subject.

After all, the best comedy, satire, critic and art was produced by taking all three, separately or together in those endeavors.

What is especially heart warming, to get to where a participant runs out of arguments in support of his/hers claim.

That is a reward in debating, is it not? If not for our differences, wouldn't we live in a world of many shades of gray? As is, we enjoy all the colors of the rainbow. Or is that too gay for some?

Dominions Son

@one_wise_man

he simply stated " ...that is illogical"....and without exception, was right.


You must have a strange definition of prevailing.

How many times did Spock suggest that what Kirk wanted to do was illogical?

Of those, how often did Kirk go ahead and do what he wanted to do anyway?

Replies:   one_wise_man  tppm
one_wise_man
Updated:

@Crumbly Writer

OK CW, you've struck a cord, truly.

I nominate you, seriously, to start something "completely different". Remember "Monty Python" sextet?

Just to brighten up the mood and kick us of elsewhere.

one_wise_man

@Dominions Son

You are very right in one aspect of it. However, Kirk was an emotional being {as all humans are) while Spock operated on pure logic.

Replies:   Dominions Son
one_wise_man

@pj

PJ, I'm really sorry, but "atheism IS faith" is so far out there, I do not know where to start. I'll just make a very personal observation. Statement like yours leads me to conclude. You went to Sunday School and no other. Right?

Replies:   Ernest Bywater  tppm
richardshagrin

I hesitate to appeal to the army to settle anything, but if I remember dog tags correctly, and everybody had to have at least two, you had three choices. J for Jewish, R for Roman Catholic and everybody else got a P for Protestant. It may not have been elegant, but it got you in what the army felt was the right cemetery when the enemy (or friendly fire) made it necessary to look at the dog tag.

Replies:   tppm
Dominions Son
Updated:

@one_wise_man


You are very right in one aspect of it. However, Kirk was an emotional being {as all humans are) while Spock operated on pure logic.


What you miss was that the statement I originally replied to from Crumbly Writer


The absolute faith that logic will eventually prevail.


is a more universal statement than a wish for logic will prevail in his personal life/actions/decisions.

That some being or beings exist that operate on pure logic does not amount to logic prevailing in a universal sense.

Ernest Bywater

@one_wise_man

I'm really sorry, but "atheism IS faith" is so far out there


Atheism is a belief structure, and thus a religion because its adherents rely on their faith in the unproven concept of there is no God at all. There is no way acceptable to all to prove or disprove if God exists, thus anyone's position on the existence or non-existence of God is a matter of faith for them.

Replies:   xman
xman
Updated:

@Ernest Bywater

Yet again,Sir,

the onus of proof of existence of supernatural was always on the individual who KNOWS that there is one.It matters not to me one way or the other. For me, the observable world and universe works rather well without one. The question was never about that. Remember, you are free to believe in what ever you choose to.

If that is what it makes you happy and content. It is unfortunate, it seems, you are trying to drive square peg into a round hole, by shifting the goalposts little by little. Again, I do not care, I've read your contributions from the start, and the situation has shifted far from you first assertion. It is obvious, so In fairness to you I would be disingenuous not to admit it.

As gently as some have tried to chip in and suggest, a viable source of the strife masses have with the state of perversion, humanity finds itself in, flatly rejected by you. Therefore, since you can not coincide even a possibility for it to be so, it is pointless to insist on it. Exchanging unpleasantness, serves no purpose nor it advances our stance.

There are hundreds of authors, on this site, and I for one, would love to see a story, fictional, or not on this perpetual discussion.

My personal experience along the way, is very positive, regardless of how heated up it has got along the way. If you have read our short history, our founding fathers, were at loggerheads with each other constantly. The Constitution and The Bill of Rights did come after prolonged battle. There are great many letter available at the Library, exchanged between various participants at that Convention.

But I'm pontificating here, forgive me.

Only long and exhaustive exchange will bring the fruits of compromise, most of us can live with.

That's Pollyanna in me, I do not let out that often.
So, over to you if you wish.

tppm

@Crumbly Writer

just that the thread drift had gotten so bad no one could follow any of the conversations any more


It would be easier if threading worked properly (replies posted directly below the message replied to).

tppm

@Dominions Son

Logic can not prevail in any universe that has humans in it


Logic is only as good as it's premises, and a major false premise is that the universe follows the rules of logic. Louis Carrol was a logician and Wonderland is 100% completely logical given it's premises.

tppm

@Dominions Son

How many times did Spock suggest that what Kirk wanted to do was illogical?


The first, and most, illogical thing that Capt. Kirk did was go on away missions himself. That's not the job of any of the bridge crew, much less the Captain.

tppm

@one_wise_man

PJ, I'm really sorry, but "atheism IS faith" is so far out there, I do not know where to start. I'll just make a very personal observation. Statement like yours leads me to conclude. You went to Sunday School and no other. Right?


If atheism isn't faith, prove there are no gods. Atheism, being based on an unprovable premise, is a faith.

Replies:   one_wise_man  xman
tppm

@richardshagrin

if I remember dog tags correctly, and everybody had to have at least two, you had three choices. J for Jewish, R for Roman Catholic and everybody else got a P for Protestant.


I don't think it was ever that limited in the U.S. military, and as of a few years ago Wicca was added (the insignia is a pentacle).

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer

@tppm

I don't think it [military dog tags] was ever that limited in the U.S. military, and as of a few years ago Wicca was added (the insignia is a pentacle).

My father was a Navy Chaplain, and it wasn't. There was always an "Atheist" dog tag, so Chaplains would know not to prestilitize (is that a word, I can't find it) too much ("I told you so!"). They still asked if they wanted someone to hear their last rites/confessions/be there for them, but they never forced the issue.

I believe, but can't remember, that UU was listed for the same reason. Some of them believe in last prayers, but not all do.

It wasn't until about 30 or 40 years ago that they increased the non-regular religions.

Replies:   richardshagrin
one_wise_man

@tppm

A very confused mind.

one_wise_man
Updated:

@Ernest Bywater

Dear Mr Bywater,

I'm very grateful, you have provided me with entertainment out of the wast and wonderful mind of yours. Thank you. My life was so dull and empty, but now very much enriched by the quality and wisdom dripping out of every page you have so graciously gifted me with. My eternal gratitude Sir.

I really was sick and tired of drivel Spinoza, Aristotle, Socrates, just a few from the ages gone by as well as a horde of contemporaries were bombarding me with. Such persistence, logic and reason was to much for my simple mind. I can rest now, be happy, because I have you. And being a legend in your own mind, I am looking forward to your next masterpiece. It oath to be good, because I have faith.

This much for helping me to realize my idiocy.

As for my real name, NSA knows it. Ask them.

richardshagrin

@Crumbly Writer

Of course the Navy could have atheists. Naval combat does not involve foxholes. Hard to dig them in the water. Everybody knows there are no atheists in foxholes, so the Army didn't need a dog tag for it.

Replies:   tppm
tppm

@richardshagrin

Tell that to a sailor in the bowels of a sinking battleship or aircraft carrier.

richardshagrin

And your point is the navy is wrong to recognize atheists? Or foxholes can exist in the water? I suppose a boat is a hole in the water in which you throw money applies to more than yachts.

But is that hole in the water a fox hole? If it is, then there are no atheists in that hole. It may not be "logical" but it is a form of logic called Boolean, if I remember about 50 years ago correctly, something about Venn diagrams. Where they intersect, both conditions are true, when they don't, at least one of the conditions for the desired combination are not met. Circle one is "in a foxhole". Circle two is "not atheist". The part where not atheist and foxhole both cover are where there are no atheists in foxholes. My theory is that the foxhole circle does not coincide with the atheist circle. If you are in the foxhole circle you must not be in the atheist circle. If I could draw a diagram you might be more willing to agree. My theory was naval personnel in combat were not in foxholes. That is being challenged. I am willing to listen to evidence. If they are in foxholes and are atheists in the navy with the dogtag to show it, then my hypothesis "There are no Atheists in foxholes is wrong. I have been wrong before. Its not fatal, at least not so far.

Replies:   xman  madnige  Crumbly Writer
xman
Updated:

@richardshagrin

Do you see now, how religion poisons everything? A simple proposition as the one above. I would have thought, there was a human being in either circle. But again, I'm ignorant, only my invisible friend in the sky decides who is who. If he was not so lazy lately, would it not make things clearer and rectify our confusion if there was a visit, long overdue . No better player in "hide and seek" then him. Or is it her? We seek he hides. But that is blasphemous, is it not?

madnige
Updated:

@richardshagrin


My theory is that the foxhole circle does not coincide with the atheist circle.


Please, if you are going to introduce mathematics to try to lend credence to your argument, get the terminology correct. Using the word 'coincide' here implies that you are in a foxhole if and only if you are not atheist - that is, the states are equivalent. The word you should have used is 'intersect', which permits both non-atheists not in a foxhole, and atheist foxhole occupiers.

You could also have 'contains' and 'is contained in', which permit only one or the other.

[edit] Re-reading, I deduce you are trying to state (in fancy language) the aphorism 'there are no atheists in a foxhole'. Your choice of a negative set, 'not an atheist', confuses matters and has thrown you off - you use the complement of this set in your statement. To state 'there are no atheists in a foxhole', you need the intersection of atheists (A) and foxhole occupiers to be null (non-overlapping, the empty set). Then, inverting A gives the statement you should have made to be consistent with your first definition of the circles, 'the foxhole circle is completely contained within the non-atheist circle'. Or, if we retain the 'non-atheist' label in the quoted statement, your statement logically says that everyone in a foxhole is an atheist, probably not what you meant.

We could also play games here cancelling the negating prefixes to use 'theist' instead of 'non-atheist', but the bottom of my barrel is filling with spent projectiles and I'm running out of piscenes.

xman

@tppm

Please read the post above. You KNOW, there is god, a mammal like me , cock sure. What information do you have as a proof of his existance not available to me, I ask. You response is predictable;as in "I Believe."

Believing in something is not a proof I'm afraid and does not make it so. Say, I believe, I'll win Lottery in the next round. I'll be the only winer! How is that for faith. I can hear you from here, you are laughing your head of. Rightly so, because I've made a very stupid statement.
So please, enlighten me, where should I or any other non-believer, Buddhist, Chinese, believers in Thor, Zeus, Poseidon, look for god? Presumably, your god made us as well, did he not?

Replies:   tppm
tppm

@xman

But, I DON'T know that there are gods, but, I don't know that there aren't either.

The statement, "I know that there is no god," is (IMHO) just as much a statement of faith as, "I know there are gods."

Also, re Navy atheists: A sailor deep in the innards of a sinking ship with a greater population than some small towns and with no chance in Hell of reaching an outer deck, much less a lifeboat, before he drowns, is just as likely to be praying as a soldier in a foxhole in a firefight. (And the soldier has a better chance of surviving.)

Replies:   xman
Chase Shivers
Updated:

As an agnostic atheist, I wish to point out that most atheists do not make the declarative statement 'there are no gods' (though some certainly do). Most make the statement 'I do not believe in god(s)' (which is what atheist essentially means, without belief in god(s). Agnostic atheists will tend to state 'I do not believe in god(s) but I cannot know with absolute certainty.'

Atheism is not a position of faith. It's the opposite. It's the default position. It takes no faith to say 'I am not convinced there are gods' any more than it takes faith to say 'I am not convinced there are fairies under my garden.'

Re: atheists in foxholes/ships: there are many, many atheists in the military. The saying is nonsense. Please see http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/ and http://militaryatheists.org/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_no_atheists_in_foxholes .

xman
Updated:

@tppm

Kind Sir,

please read the following. This is taken, without permission from a gentleman, far more eloquent then I'll ever be, which beautifully pictures how a non-believer understands the subject. By no means complete but concise.


Paul Hackett - Shallow thinker when I think at all

Before I start I just want to say that my view is not meant as an offense or insult to any religious creed.

Please feel free to disagree with it but respect it as my view.

We humans, despite what we might prefer to think, are essentially lost in a world we don't understand and, probably, simply do not have the mental capacity to ever have more than a very superficial grasp of what's really going on.

Now why are we here? Well, from an evolutionary perspective, we came about quite by accident and inherited characteristics that were conducive to procreation.

So, if our existence has a purpose, it is no more than to propagate our own genes.

However, this leads to a number of fundamental conflicts.

First, as we want ONLY our genes to be successfully propagated and not those of others (that we see as rivals), males are naturally driven to mate with the maximum number of females.

However, this causes problems: other males will be aggrieved if a small number are impregnating all the females and will likely turn their aggression towards these few. Additionally, a male whose offspring number in the thousands will not have the capacity to provide for, and therefore guarantee, the survival of his progeny.

Also, we want our tribal companions to cooperate with us as we can't do everything ourselves. Cooperation among humans has led us to improve our quality of life and, therefore, the opportunities for our offspring to survive.

From this conflict derives MORALITY, good and evil, right and wrong. Basically, we have developed within our tribes and societies a set of golden rules that enable us, through uncomfortable but ultimately beneficial compromises, to maximize the chances of our DNA being passed to successive generations.

Secondly, we learn very early in our lives that death is inevitable for all of us. However, one of, if not THE, strongest instinct we have is to stay alive. We need to stay alive to do the mating and nurturing of our offspring necessary to guarantee procreation.

But, how do we reconcile the inevitability of death with our urge to avoid it? The notion of LIFE AFTER DEATH goes a long way towards a reconciliation.

Finally, to do what we are driven to do (procreate) takes quite some effort. What motivates us to expend our energy attracting mates, building homes and providing years of sustenance for our young?

We need to feel that we, as a race, are important, that we matter in the greater scheme of things.

Just as children benefit from the warm, comfortable, caring atmosphere generated by their parents, so our species as a whole needs to believe that we are being overseen by a kindly, but right-minded, FATHER-LIKE FIGURE who has our best interests at heart.

Indeed, two of the greatest cataclysms in human intellectual evolution (Copernicus/Galileo -- the earth is not the center of the universe; Darwin -- we are not made in the image of God but evolved from apes) were so fundamentally upsetting precisely because they attacked our belief in our self-importance.

The three concepts that essentially enable us to maximize our abilities to successfully propagate our DNA are all provided by religion.

Religion, or some variant of it, is, and has been for countless millennia, an integral part of all, or almost all, terrestrial societies.


How I wish I've seen this before I've joined this thread.

Replies:   pj
pj

@xman


How I wish I've seen this before I've joined this thread.

Why?! I think it sums up everything quite nicely. And, all due respect, you cannot say Atheism is not a faith and proseletyse {sic?} for it at the same time.
If God doesnt exist then what difference does it make? The end result is the same.

Usually I counter by saying that Secular Humanism is the Atheist's faith... and still had pushback.
- Bottom Line then, if you believe in nothing, you will believe anything.

Replies:   cave jug  cave jug
Crumbly Writer
Updated:

@richardshagrin

Richard, if I may, the old "There are no atheists in a foxhole" is an old bone about how atheism isn't a 'real' belief, and in a moment of panic, it's tossed aside like week-old hamburger.

Most atheists don't appreciate this analogy, usually developed by the very religious. I'm convinced it was originally inspired (if by anything at all), not by atheists, but by the 'non-practicing' religious. Those who left the church for any number of reasons, but still believe in spirits and an afterlife. (Plus, truth be told, anytime you face death, you go through the denial and 'deal making' phase.) You may want to read some Kubbler Ross to catch up on the subject.

Chase, I'm sorry, but you're either an Agnostic ("I can't prove whether God exists or not") or an Atheist ("I can't personally believe in God for my own reasons"). I can't believe you can have both. Either you're not sure, or you know what you believe, but you can't straddle the fence between ignorance and knowledge.

PJ, while many Humanists are atheists, not all atheists are Humanists. While I nice idea, the problem with most Humanists is that they too like to proselytize. It's a big problem in the UU church, where they'll accept accept everyone, and a small core group thinks everyone should be a Humanist.

P.S. For those unfamiliar with Humanism, it's the belief (faith) in Humans to do the right thing and work together.

richardshagrin
Updated:

@Crumbly Writer

I admit humans often work together. Doing the right thing, not so much. I suppose it depends on what the right thing is. Working together usually involves setting up organizations. A couple of inconvenient principles interfere with those organizations. The Peter Principle, workers get promoted to their level of incompetence and the observation work expands to fill the time available for its completion. Either nothing or the wrong things get done because of management incompetence, and deadlines for work getting done tend not to be met. I think the truth of these observations can be observed with NASA and our exploration of either the solar system or the universe. When was the last time we went to the moon, another planet, or built a space station, all themes of science fiction when NASA was conceived. We don't even send our astronauts into space on our own launch systems, as far as I recall. There are still large numbers of people working for NASA and I am sure they are busy, lobbying congress for more money, working on projects for the late 21st century, keeping the agency and its payroll alive. Work together, yes. The right thing, depends on what the right thing is. In World War Two, the Nazi Party and almost all the Geman people worked together. IMHO, not for the right thing.

Chase Shivers
Updated:

@Crumbly Writer

Humbly, CW, you do not know what you're talking about. Please google 'atheism vs agnosticism' or see the Iron Chariots wiki for a good discussion of the difference. One (theism/atheism) is about belief, the other (gnosticism/agnosticism) is about knowledge). They are not the same thing. http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheist_vs._agnostic

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer

@Chase Shivers

Sorry, Chase, rather than basing my arguments on Wiki definitions (a notorious weak source), I'm basing my responses on Atheists and Agnostics I've known over the years. The Atheists say "I personally don't believe". The Agnostics say, "We can't possibly know". They're two different things. One is a person statement, the other is a statement about knowledge, and about their refusal to rule anything out as a result. It's basically a 'fall back' position (i.e. "I'm not sure about God, but I'll attend church because I'd rather not bet on there being no hell.").

Replies:   Chase Shivers  cave jug
Chase Shivers

@Crumbly Writer

Agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive. They refer to very different aspects. I don't really care how people misuse words when they label themselves. I'm sure you understand as an author how much it means to use words correctly and not base your use of them on what 'other people' think they mean.

Dismissing my link as 'wiki definitions' is a cop out to what I had to say. Feel free to google others or use your own favored source, there are many available to you. Theism is about belief. Gnosticism is about knowledge.

There are four quadrants of theism/gnosticism:

Gnostic Theist: "I believe in God(s) and I know this is certainly true"
Agnostic Theist: "I believe in God(s) but I cannot/do not know if this belief is certainly true"
Agnostic Atheist: "I do not believe in God(s) but I cannot/do know if this belief is certainly true"
Gnostic Atheist: "I do not believe in God(s) and I know this is certainly true"

Again, I really don't care how people label themselves or how they misuse/misunderstand these terms. You stated that "you're either an Agnostic or an Atheist." Sorry, but you are incorrect. I've done all I'm going to do to help you understand the difference. Up to you whether you wish to update your understanding of these terms or not.

Replies:   cave jug  El_Sol
cave jug
Updated:

@pj

Hi there,

my experience of 65+ years showed me in regards to religious believes, a startling correlation between it and education. Namely, lower the education in natural science and the physical laws that govern, higher the religiosity.

The history speaks to support this stance.

Replies:   Perv Otaku
cave jug

@Crumbly Writer

Yes CW,
what you brought up in this instance is often refereed as "Pascal's wager". And works well for people on the fence.

Replies:   tppm
cave jug

@Chase Shivers

With respect Sir,
you are just confusing this issue even further. I would like, just as you would no doubt like, that people agree with everything and anything I say. It is not going to happen! Ever.

The level of general knowledge in all things natural, between individuals, is so wast and leads to wild differences in opinions. We've got this far as a species, because we grudgingly found compromises along the journey. If it was not for cooperation, we would still tend to herds of half domesticated animals I'm afraid.

El_Sol

@Chase Shivers

What am I if...

I believe God is true but he/she/it cannot allow himself/herself/itself to be known, as proof of God removes free will.

Replies:   remarcsd
cave jug
Updated:

@pj

Pj,

for fuck sake, look up the definition of the word FAITH! I'll save you 30 sec, of your life;

Atheism is opposite of believing in supernatural! So, if one wants to equate that to faith, one is free to do so, but it does not make it so.

I am glad you finished your post with last sentence as is. I read it like this.

"I am shit scared of death and desperately wish there is heaven where I'll bask in the sun forever." Bon Voyage.

remarcsd

@El_Sol

From a Christian perspective, knowledge of God does not remove free will. Lucifer had absolute knowledge of God and still had the freedom to rebel.

Replies:   El_Sol
tppm

@cave jug

what you brought up in this instance is often refereed as "Pascal's wager". And works well for people on the fence.


Only if one believes there are only two choices, God and no God, but there are actually dozens, at least (actually an infinite number). Just the predominant ones that Pasquale would have known of are Catholic, any number of Protestant, Judaism, and Islam. And for at least three of those picking the wrong one would be worse than picking none.

Replies:   cave jug
El_Sol

@remarcsd

One has an original thought... he convinces others, but it is basically one.

I don't give us enough credit to be able to produce the one original thinker.

cave jug

@tppm

You've got that very, very wrong. And it was not Pasquale. It was Blaise Pascal 1623-1662

Pascal's wager
noun:Philosophy
Pascals wager; noun: Pascal's wager

the argument that it is in one's own best interest to behave as if God exists, since the possibility of eternal punishment in hell outweighs any advantage in believing otherwise.

If you can be bothered, take a look at this, it explains it rather well, I should think.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/pasc-wag/

Replies:   tppm
tppm
Updated:

@cave jug

I'm familiar with Pascal's wager (sorry about the misspelling) but it doesn't work unless there are only two choices, God or no God, when, in fact, there are an infinite number of choices on the God side, some of which are mutually exclusive. What if the God hypothesis turns out to be true, but you chose the wrong god?

Hail Eris!

Replies:   cave jug
cave jug

@tppm

Ok ,
you can not be bothered to check the link I sugested and get few bits of info you may not have known about.

I would have thought that monotheism has settled on one god, point of their contention is the name and whatnot.

Again, I have ditched the religious teaching long ago as man made. Therefore, it matters not one way or the other. Further up the page, you could see how the Pascal was brought into this thread.
Cheers

Replies:   tppm
tppm
Updated:

@cave jug

One, monotheism has only settled that there's one god among monotheist religions. At the time Pascal formulated his wager there were several polytheist religions active, e.g. Hindu and various Asian, African, and Native American animistic religions.

And two, even among monotheistic religions if you pick the wrong one god you're in deep kimchi. For instance what if all the prophets after the building of second temple are heretics, or contrariwise, what if Joseph Smith is a true prophet?

Replies:   cave jug
richardshagrin
Updated:

Hurrah, I get to make post 200. Who would have thought this topic would morph as it has?

There are lots of true prophets. The bible is full of them. Like treason, which never prospers, because if it does, none dare call it treason. Edit, this isn't as clear as I want. The difference between true prophets and false ones may break down to how successful they are in gaining and keeping adherents.

Some religions respect all the prophets that led to their true and final one. If you are a monotheist, others who call to worship the one true god are right, too, although they might have a few details wrong that god has changed since then. It seems to be a law of nature, religions splinter, but they all claim at least one prophet as divinely inspired. The big ones get to call their Pope or senior Elder or whatever the name used as infallible, or something like that.

The problem with organizations, even religious ones is the Peter Principle, where people get promoted to their level of incompetence and also the principle that work expands to fill the time available for its completion. Somewhere I mentioned what these did to NASA and our march to the stars, or at least the planets.

One important reason priests can't marry is so that they won't have legitimate children to inherit property. The church wants to keep it and not have a motivation for any priests to leave something to their children.

Another prophet driven religion, which mostly did not expand was based on John the Baptist. According to an article I read in Time Magazine long ago there are still villages in the middle east where he is the prophet that leads them to god.

If there weren't so many options, it would be easier to pick the one true one.

cave jug

@tppm

I could not agree more on the subject of religion.

But I have already angered few people of faith by trying to debate the issue. It git heated up at the and, so, I'm not going there. It is tiresome. I like late George Carlin's quote: "The eyes are useless when mind is blind."

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer

@cave jug

But I have already angered few people of faith by trying to debate the issue. It git heated up at the and, so, I'm not going there. It is tiresome.

CJ, it seems to me that you haven't upset many people of faith, but those who see atheism as an alternate belief. I wouldn't classify most of those responding as being 'blinded by their faith', but merely 'not recognizing the brilliance of my own logic'.

I studied Philosophy in college, but I gave it up when I realized ALL those philosophical points by ALL those philosophers were utterly dependent upon the strictures of their language. If you translate their arguments into other languages, and their arguments fall apart. People have to agree with your assumptions in order for your logic to apply to them.

El_Sol

I would like to say that 'some' (if not many) Christians are monotheistic in name only. God, Jesus, and Holy are separate and distinct... but not.

It's one, but it also three. It's three, but it's also one.

I like to think of myself as monotheistic and polytheistic at the same time, like my God and Gods.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@El_Sol

It's one, but it also three. It's three, but it's also one.


A concept introduced by the church leadership at one point for their own reasons and not only is it not supported in the Bible, it contradicts a statement listed as being made by God that is in the Bible.

Exodus Chapter 20 verse 3: Thou shalt have no other Gods before me.

NB: note the plural version of God.

There's a number of such human added doctrinal points to increase the power of the church; like the use of statues, abstaining from sex, and priests not marrying. - Never confuse the church with its teachings or scriptures, they aren't always the same.

Crumbly Writer

@Ernest Bywater

A concept introduced by the church leadership at one point for their own reasons and not only is it not supported in the Bible, it contradicts a statement listed as being made by God that is in the Bible.

Exodus Chapter 20 verse 3: Thou shalt have no other Gods before me.

To be fair, not only are all three supposed to be the same 'being', but the 'spirit' and the 'son' are secondary to the almighty God (Jesus was never almighty, though there was a lot of discussion over whether his feet ever actually touched the ground when he walked!).

When people ask about my church, I always explain, 'the Universalists believe that all religious beliefs are equally valid, while the Unitarians don't believe in the Holy Trinity'. (It's a massive oversimplification, but it summarizes their history fairly nicely.)

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@Crumbly Writer

while the Unitarians don't believe in the Holy Trinity'


And right they are to not believe in it. The Holy Trinity was the creation of a group of bishops to explain away a hole in the theological structure they created to give themselves more power within the gatherings of the bishops of the churches. And is also a big part of the split at that time.

The sad thing is most of the Protestant churches kept that bit of doctrine when they split off from the Catholic church, and the Later-day Saints (Mormons) are the only modern Christian group to insist Jesus and God are two entities. - Well, that was the status last time I had a serious look at them all back in the late 1990s.

El_Sol

I just like being monotheistic in name only and a cannibal in spirit.

richardshagrin

@Ernest Bywater

It sounds to me that God is willing for thou to have other gods, just none before me. Most religions allow the worship of money, for example.

If it means no gods but God, why did he put in "before me."?

Its hard not to confuse a church with its teachings or the scriptures they are supposed to be based on. There appear to be some religious or religions based on making a profit. There was one invented by a Science Fiction writer. There are passionate believers who probably make it a "real" religion. All you need is faith. That may make Science with a capital S a religion. If there is logical proof to believe in say gravity, that would indicate it isn't a religion. Global Warming as caused by human emission of carbon dioxide may be science, or it may be religion. If you say you haven't seen proof, you get a backlash that may indicate its based on a "religion" than scientific fact. OK, its getting warmer, in some places and may be getting colder in others, there appears to be climate change. Is it caused by human CO2 discharge? Might be. Might not be. Maybe the sun is a variable star and its going through a warm period. I heard somewhere Mars is getting warmer. Is that because of human CO2?

imsly1
Updated:

I have read the bible like most people here have...but I have a entirely different take onReligion ...The Bible is the most Edited and rewritten piece of Writing in World History....every church and every Religion that believes in God has made it fit their agenda..it's more untrustworthy than Barack Insane O...

I believe that Aliens...were the gods...and The bible was written to keep the peasants in line...and to extort money and aligance from them...

Just like the Cult that calls its self Islam...

How else would you logically explain people living for 3-4-500 years...

Or all of the alien artwork around the world..and the impossible to reproduce construction work..

There's over 900 Trillion stars in the universe and at least that number of planets..and yet we as a planet feel that somehow we're special enough to have Our Own God?? We probably won't find 1000 other races out in space in our great great great grandkids lifetimes but I would bet that there are millions of planets with more advanced civilizations than us out there ...

Replies:   sejintenej
Banadin

Please hold the debate for one hour, I have to run to the store. I'm out of popcorn.

Banadin

Ernest Bywater

@Banadin

Please hold the debate for one hour, I have to run to the store. I'm out of popcorn.


Better get the super dooper humungous sized bag for this debate, you'll need it - oh, and get some large bottles of soda as well.

Dominions Son

@Banadin

Please hold the debate for one hour, I have to run to the store. I'm out of popcorn.


1 hour? This thread had been dead for nearly two and a half months until imsly1 came along and tried to fire it back up.

richardshagrin

To lose friends and alienate people, discuss politics and religion.

sejintenej
Updated:

@imsly1


The Bible is the most Edited and rewritten piece of Writing in World History....every church and every Religion that believes in God has made it fit their agenda..it's more untrustworthy than Barack Insane O...


I won't argue with that. Surely it was originally created by a group of men who were used to controlling their women so anything that suggested that women could have any place in the Christian Church was eliminated. This was the Semitic culture overlaid with Judaism. Some of the ancient texts at least were ordered destroyed and there are numerous complaints about women close to the holy altar, touching religious vestments through the ages. Even Jesus' own wife and closest apostle was ignored and condemned

"Women are not allowed to approach the altar". [ Canons of the Synod of Laodicea, AD 370, Joannes Dom Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissma Collectio,tome II, Antonius Zatta Venice, 1759, cols 563-604;"

................

In 494 AD, for example, Pope Gelasius wrote to the bishops of Lucania:

"As we have learnt to our anger, such a contempt for the divine truths has set in that even women, it has been reported, serve at the holy altars. And everything that is exclusively entrusted to the service of men has been carried out by the sex that has no right to do it". [Letter IX, Ch. XXVI, PL vol. 59 cols 48, 55-56.]

"It has also been suggested by some persons that, contrary to the apostolic church order, - unheard of until this time! - women have been admitted to the levitical [= diaconal] ministry. I don't know in what place. This, however, is something church order does not allow because it is indecent. And since such an ordination has been performed against reason, it should be undone. Moreover, steps should be taken to ensure no one else will (Synod of Nimes AD 394)

You should hear my friend Chris (an ex-Catholic Priest and teacher at a seminary) who supplied about twenty texts on that concept alone, a few of which I précied above - No, the bible as we know it has been cobbled together at varying times by people on a mission - a mission apparently of self-service


I believe that Aliens...were the gods...and The bible was written to keep the peasants in line...and to extort money and aligance from them...


I've heard all that stuff every night on American TV - repeat something long enough and loud enough and someone somewhere might believe it.


Just like the Cult that calls its self Islam...


Call Islam a cult and you must call Christianity, Judaism; Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism etc. cults. (OK so that is the French for a religion but in English it is of itself debasing.

How else would you logically explain people living for 3-4-500 years...


We learned that in Aramaic type languages the references to numbers in this way merely indicated "a very long time". Thus when Jesus was 40 days in the desert it does not mean he was there for six weeks less 48 hours.

I'm now going to throw a spanner in the works here. Ancient Chinese texts talk of the sun not rising for three days and when it did rise it rose in the east and not in the west as theretofore. Was an old day the same length is a new day? an old year as long as a new Year? Did this affect understanding of the old Judaic texts? What did the Mayan's predecessors put on their styli (or didn't they have them then?)

There's over 900 Trillion stars in the universe and at least that number of planets..and yet we as a planet feel that somehow we're special enough to have Our Own God??


What makes you think that? There are umpteen deities worshipped on earth. The Christian God is considered "God of all Creation" - not just earth. Yahveh, Allah, all the Hindu gods, Iamenjah and his parallels, - who claims that they are only for earthlings? Believers might claim these Gods for their fellow believers but do they consciously and be design exclude aliens?


We probably won't find 1000 other races out in space in our great great great grandkids lifetimes but I would bet that there are millions of planets with more advanced civilizations than us out there


Sure, it's a big old place out there and our horses can't gallop so far so fast

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@sejintenej

This is a dead thread. Let it have some dignity in it's afterlife.

Perv Otaku

@cave jug

my experience of 65+ years showed me in regards to religious believes, a startling correlation between it and education. Namely, lower the education in natural science and the physical laws that govern, higher the religiosity.


Lack of science education leads to "magical thinking", essentially if you don't understand something then you fill in "God did it". This isn't universal, some people with a thorough education in science still find room for faith in the small remaining gaps. Other people with a poor science education nevertheless prefer science over God and actually shift the magical thinking to science itself, i.e. stick the tag "science" on something and they'll believe whatever you say despite having no real understanding of it.

Replies:   cave jug
cave jug
Updated:

@Perv Otaku

I would never connect science and religion as one complementing the other. Quite the opposite.

Religion was, and always will, be against "interfering with gods creation" and has and will fight every scientific discovery which puts the god on the back foot.

It is quite obvious why that is. Loss of power over us, loss of revenue, much less bums on the seats and less greenbacks in the basket. I wish I stay alive long enough to see the bastards start paying taxes just like the rest of us. That would be my happiest day on this rock!

So, someone calling himself/herself as a scientist, and still "looking for a creator should ask for their money back, they've spent during university education. They are being frauds, both ways!

Wheezer

@cave jug

Agree completely!

Ernest Bywater

@cave jug

I would never connect science and religion as one complementing the other. Quite the opposite.


You should never confuse religion with people who claim to be religious leaders because they have no, or almost no, relationship to each other beyond wishful thinking and a power grab by the religious leaders.

Religion is a belief system and can be applied to anything where it comes down to a personal belief of one point or another, and this is also true of a lot of science and scientist.

Does God exist, some people point at what they call evidence God exists and say, "Yes, God exists!" While others point at the same things and say, "No, God doesn't exist!" Yet neither side can prove their claim beyond a shadow of a doubt, so they just restate what they believe the case to be. A large amount of science is just like that where people state a case and claim an authoritative figure for it being accurate, but can't prove the case beyond a shadow of a doubt. Yet, some aspects of science can prove what they say beyond a shadow of a doubt, and all of that can be readily duplicated time after time. What is interesting is the many times science has stated things as facts when they're simply an item of belief by the person making the statement.

Many people are still awaiting for science to prove their is no God, but they haven't and they can't; even if it's simply due to the fact it's almost impossible (if not actually impossible) to prove a negative. There are many day to day things that science has not explained and isn't even close to explaining yet.

Now for a few examples of where science has proven itself to be a system of belief because the powers of science have made clear statements as facts that have since proven to be untrue when properly investigated and researched.

1. Dinosaurs have reptilian hides - latest evidence is they had feathers.

2. Morphine is not addictive - yes, that's what the scientists said when it was first put out for sale.

3. Asbestos won't cause you any health issue.

4. Rockets can't work in space. Thankfully, Goddard didn't believe that.

5. Heavier than air machines can't fly.

6. Man can't survive going faster than 20 miles an hour - then decent trains proved them wrong.

7. Man is responsible for global warming - it seems some scientists believe volcanic actions has no effect on global warming, nor do solar flares.

I could go on, but I think you get the point that some science is proven fact and some is only what they believe, and thus a religion because it's a belief structure.

Replies:   Wheezer  cave jug
Ernest Bywater

@cave jug

Loss of power over us, loss of revenue, much less bums on the seats and less greenbacks in the basket. I wish I stay alive long enough to see the bastards start paying taxes just like the rest of us.


A very relevant comment on a lot of the power hungry rectums out there: religious leaders of many ilks, politicians of many parties, and many of the big corporate bosses.

Wheezer

@Ernest Bywater

The nice thing about scientific theory is that good scientists willingly toss out the old when new information comes along disproving old concepts, or offering new hypothesis that better explain observed phenomena. It's not a belief. It's using known facts to reach the best conclusion. New facts, new conclusion. :) Totally different than religion where fact is never allowed to get in the way of belief unless it is so overwhelming that it cannot be ignored. Look how long it took the Catholic church to admit Galileo was right.

Ernest Bywater

@Wheezer

The nice thing about scientific theory is that good scientists willingly toss out the old when new information comes along disproving old concepts, or offering new hypothesis that better explain observed phenomena. It's not a belief.


While it's a theory it's a belief, it's what they believe is the way it happens. Once the prove it to be fact it's not longer a belief, nor is it still a theory - mind you, many proven things are still mistakenly called a theory because they can't be bothered to change the title.

The example of Galileo and the Catholic Church is a prime example of the difference between the religion and the religious leaders. Galileo's problems were with the religious leaders and not the religion they pretended to follow.

richardshagrin
Updated:

@Wheezer

Sometimes the scientists don't discard the theories they hold dear (Einstein, God does not dice with the Universe. In his refutation of Physics that are now not all that radical.) What happens is the old scientists die off and new ones believe what the old ones wouldn't. It would be nice to believe Scientists don't act like people when new information or theories develop, but its not entirely true.

Replies:   Wheezer
sejintenej

Science is about theories and hypotheses, not facts because facts can be disproven

Replies:   cave jug
cave jug

@Ernest Bywater

You Sir are an example of someone that will always have something to say and maintain if not an existence of a god but a possibility of it. And it makes no difference whatsoever. This is something believers have been hanging onto forever.
It was never the job of science to prove or disprove the existence of god. Quite the opposite. You say, there is one, I say "I do not know" and more importantly if there is one, HOW THE FUCK DO YOU KNOW THAT.
A mammal just like myself makes a claim of extraordinary nature, without any means no evidence to show and defend the position. Believing there is one , does not make it so!
The only thing you're sure off is uncertainty, the only thing is certain is doubt, the main thing is Socratic principle, you only educated is to understand how ignorant you are.
Once you assume a creator and a plan, makes us objects in a cruel experiment whereby, we are created sick and commanded to be well. Over us to supervise this is installed a celestial dictatorship, kind of divine North Korea, greedy, exigent for uncritical praise from dawn till dusk, and swift to punish for original sins which so tenderly gifted us with, in the very first place.
However, let no one say there is no cure. Salvation is on offer, Redemption indeed is promised, at the low price of surrender of your critical faculties.

That is why the concept of a god will get to where it belong, on the shelf of myths and wishful thinking.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
cave jug

@sejintenej

Please, think this through again. It is nonsensical. Lookup the meanings of the words; theory, hypotheses, and a "fact". It seems to me you are not clear on those.

Ernest Bywater

@cave jug

You Sir are an example of someone that will always have something to say and maintain if not an existence of a god but a possibility of it.


You do love to warp what's said. Every real scientist in existence will tell you anything is possible until it's either proven as a fact or disproven as a fact. Which is what I said. I did not offer you any theology beyond what is commonly called the scientific process but you choose to see it as something else. Well, oddly enough, I think you are allowed to think and believe what you like. However, you do not have a right to put words into my mouth or claim a different meaning to what I actually say to suit your agenda or belief structure. I suggest you go back and read my last three posts because I didn't state a personal belief about God in anyway, either for or against, I simply said neither side can provide definitive evidence to support their belief and claim.

Wheezer

@richardshagrin

And some do. Hawking admitted he was wrong about some of his earlier statements about Black Holes. Science is constantly evolving as new observations and data replace old. Don't confuse Science with scientists, who are only humans. Fact vs Theory: Gravity is a fact. It exists. It can be measured, observed and experienced first hand. Exactly how and why it works is a Theory. Note the capitalization of Theory. A scientific Theory is much different than the theory most people think of when they hear the word. What most ordinary people, or non-scientists, call theory is a hypothesis in the scientific community - an idea of why something is. A Theory is the best current explanation for the observable, known data.

Replies:   BlinkReader
BlinkReader

@Wheezer

And our greatest problem these days is demise of science.
Just look around you - what are children learning?
They are learning that is important to be seen, to belong to some "hype", to get to money fast, etc (youst look at Youtube, Instagram, look at their mobile devices)...

They do not learn to think with their brains, don't learn to observe and conclude based on observations, they forgot about science, and we are guilty for this.

When I see what is said or written on "serious": news TV channels, web portals, papers (who is reading papers these days anyway???), blogs, even look at your "friends" on Facebook - i became afraid, very afraid of stupidity pouring to all of us ...

Replies:   Ernest Bywater  Wheezer
Ernest Bywater

@BlinkReader

And our greatest problem these days is demise of science.


Ayep, a statement by a media person or someone in authority or with political power is more important than facts or truth.

Replies:   sejintenej
Wheezer

@BlinkReader

And why is there a demise of science? Because, at least here in the USA, States have found that cutting Education funding is an easy way to pay for the tax cuts to the 1%ers. It's especially true here in my home state.

Replies:   sejintenej  BlinkReader
sejintenej

@Wheezer

And why is there a demise of science? Because, at least here in the USA, States have found that cutting Education funding is an easy way to pay for the tax cuts to the 1%ers. It's especially true here in my home state.

I see two big problems over here:
1) "'elf 'n safety" - we can't have the little dears being at risk of getting their little mittens wet let alone scratched. Going back a bit when I was learning to make aniline dye (aged 16) a flask exploded covering three boys in 30N sodium hydroxide which is as nasty as you can get. Everyone on the class knew what to do; we simply soaked the victims with water and then soaked them again so they got away with losing all their clothes but only a slight reddening of the skin instead of serious burns. (The master was out of the room!) That is illegal now.
Later, in training for a weekend hobby the airport fire trainers who were teaching us were not allowed to come near us in case they got burned - we had a 30 second safety margin in our gear plus knowledge - they had several minutes plus water monitors. Health and Safety rules again.
2 Scientific investigation often has no immediate offshoots visible in advance. Who would think that space travel would yield the non-stick on your cooking pans? Without visible and certain financial returns the money men don't want to finance science. There is one famous exception to this - 3M encourage all their staff to take an hour a day following their own ideas at company expense - and it pays off in spades.

BlinkReader
Updated:

@Wheezer

There is something much worse:

Public opinion is made in seconds, and public does not know a s*** about what they should know.

They even don't want to acknowledge that they don't know some subject.

Couple of days ago I witnessed heavy head smashing (read discussion on public TV) about microwave oven and dangers associated with it.

At the same time, participants were heavy using their mobile devices, wireless routers, bluetooth, etc...

Any student of physics 101 should know what is what, what emits around and what is shielded. But they didn't know anything, but were using heavy words masking their ignorance.

And that was aired on important TV station ...

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@BlinkReader

Couple of days ago I witnessed heavy head smashing (read discussion on public TV) about microwave oven and dangers associated with it.

At the same time, participants were heavy using their mobile devices, wireless routers, bluetooth, etc...


Here the actual wattage of the RF signal makes a significant difference to any real risks.

The mobile devices, wireless routers, bluetooth, etc... have a tiny fraction of the power output of a microwave oven. They present no significant risk

Climb a long range RF transmission (Radio/TV) tower with the power on and it will cook you to death in minutes.

Replies:   sejintenej  BlinkReader
sejintenej

@Dominions Son

Here the actual wattage of the RF signal makes a significant difference to any real risks.

The mobile devices, wireless routers, bluetooth, etc... have a tiny fraction of the power output of a microwave oven. They present no significant risk


The medical thought over here is that using mobile phones CAN cause brain cancer though with less power being used these days the risk is somewhat reduced.

sejintenej

@Ernest Bywater

a statement by a media person or someone in authority or with political power is more important than facts or truth.

IF I didn't realise you were being cynical I would have thought you actually believed that c r a p

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Dominions Son

@sejintenej

Here the actual wattage of the RF signal makes a significant difference to any real risks.

The mobile devices, wireless routers, bluetooth, etc... have a tiny fraction of the power output of a microwave oven. They present no significant risk

The medical thought over here is that using mobile phones CAN cause brain cancer though with less power being used these days the risk is somewhat reduced.


Impossible. microwaves are non ionizing. They can heat an object (given sufficient power) but they can't alter DNA any other way (which would be necessary for them to cause cancer.

Hold a strong enough microwave emitter up to you head and it will cook your brain. but that's all it can do.

Ernest Bywater

@sejintenej

IF I didn't realise you were being cynical I would have thought you actually believed that c r a p


The sad thing is the high number of people who accept something as gospel truth because it's said by anyone in the media a lot, and not because they may know what they're talking about.

Ernest Bywater

@sejintenej

The medical thought over here is that using mobile phones CAN cause brain cancer though with less power being used these days the risk is somewhat reduced.


A lot of that comes from the early cell phones that used 5 to 8 watts, but for the last decade most cell phone only use 0.5 watts of transmission power, and that makes a difference to the field strength and the size of the electromagnetic field itself. Not sure what the docs were afraid of, but many were.

BlinkReader

@Dominions Son

- How much someone must be stupid to climb on active RF tower?
- And how many cases of this terminal stupidity have you witnessed?
In my part of the world I found only one case, and that was long ago and was documented and punished murder (someone sent poor guy up to repair something and then activated power)

Even putting someone's head in microwave oven and activate it, is not so easy. At least you need to know how to bypass security (and not to mention that empty head is usually to big for that :D ).

On the other hand, how many minutes a day average teenager spend with mobile on his/her ear?
And, how close are you to your PC / Tablet / wireless router, now when you are reading this post?

Replies:   Dominion's Son
Dominion's Son
Updated:

@BlinkReader


- How much someone must be stupid to climb on active RF tower?

- And how many cases of this terminal stupidity have you witnessed?

In my part of the world I found only one case, and that was long ago and was documented and punished murder (someone sent poor guy up to repair something and then activated power)


Personally witnessed, none. However, I have read about a number of incidents where transmitter repair men were suffered severe burns because power was accidentally restored before they were all the way down or repair techs climbed a tower thinking it was off when it wasn't. In my neck of the woods these are usually judged to be accidents.


Even putting someone's head in microwave oven and activate it, is not so easy. At least you need to know how to bypass security (and not to mention that empty head is usually to big for that :D ).


No, but you do get some microwave exposure simply standing in front of it while it's running. Though people have pulled the microwave emitters out of microwave ovens and powered them up to play around with them and that is potentially dangerous.


On the other hand, how many minutes a day average teenager spend with mobile on his/her ear?


Not long enough to raise the temperature of their skin by any measurable amount.


And, how close are you to your PC / Tablet / wireless router, now when you are reading this post?


A few feet but the wattage of the wireless router is too low to do any damage.

With climbing an active RF transmission tower, it is the direct exposure to microwave radiation that does the damage, not a generalized EM field.

There is zero evidence that EM fields generated by any electronic device (including any active light bulbs in your house.) have any effect on anyone.

In fact people claiming EM sensitivity have been put through double blind tests and shown symptoms when they thought they were being exposed but weren't and showed no symptoms when the were being exposed but thought they weren't

awnlee jawking

@sejintenej


with less power being used these days


And yet a recent study shows stronger emissions for modern phones than those of a generation ago.

AJ

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@awnlee jawking

And yet a recent study shows stronger emissions for modern phones than those of a generation ago.


What time frame are you talking about in years. Cell phones from the late 1980s tot he mid 1990s were usually 5 to 10 watt units while the ones today are usually 0.5 to 1.0 watt units with most being at the low end. At one time some companies were trying down as low as 0.2 watts but found they didn't work too well inside buildings.

Replies:   cave jug  awnlee jawking
cave jug

@Ernest Bywater

You gentleman are mixing pears and apples. Phones of the 1990 were "analogue" while todays phones are "digital". Difference is, digital phones work in gigahertz region of frequency, while analogue were in Megahertz. Higher the frequency of the signal, further penetration with less power. Hence, power bellow 1 Watt.
If your remember asbestos and tobacco, we need just as long if not longer, to see the damage, if any. to our brains from the cell phones.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@cave jug

If your remember asbestos and tobacco, we need just as long if not longer, to see the damage, if any. to our brains from the cell phones.


No we don't Radio frequency EM radiation is non-ionizing even for the higher gigahertz range. That means regardless of the power level the only thing it can do to your brain is increase it's temperature. 5 or even 10 watts is not going to have enough effect to overwhelm your body's ability to regulate it's temperature.

Given enough wattage, RF radiation will cook you, but that will happen in minutes/hours, not years.

awnlee jawking

@Ernest Bywater

I can't remember the full details but I think it was to do with the extra signal strength required by 3G and 4G - one of the current top selling phones has ten times the emission levels of an old phone like a Nokia 3300.

AJ

BlinkReader

Are we speaking about same sex marriage, plain human stupidity, or some essential engineering and physics questions about radiation issues?

If we are speaking about radiation, as plain byproduct of U-bombs and sites like Chernobyl or Fukushima, there is something we are all forgetting - since first A-bomb over heads of (mostly) innocent population has passed over 70 years.
And there was lot of searching and testing, and scientific sniffing around - but plants, animals and human population on these places is living pretty well, much better than people in Peking now under all this smog ...

It seams that chemical pollution is much worse than radiation hazards we are encountering today...

Replies:   richardshagrin
richardshagrin

@BlinkReader

Are "U-bombs" like 1-bombs some authors get? They may be hazardous to author's mental health.

Replies:   BlinkReader
BlinkReader
Updated:

@richardshagrin

Ufff...

Sorry for misunderstanding.

In far away shit hole where I'm spending my days, this is word for atomic weapon of any size and power (like Uranium...)

Perv Otaku

@cave jug

I would never connect science and religion as one complementing the other. Quite the opposite.

Religion was, and always will, be against "interfering with gods creation" and has and will fight every scientific discovery which puts the god on the back foot.


This is very true historically, less so these days. Most religions don't bother denying science anymore, rather they just incorporate God. Rather than the six days of the book of Genesis, God invented the big bang and evolution, that sort of thing.

God and science don't exactly go together per se, but declaring them mutually exclusive is just as foolish.

Science is also plenty susceptible to dogmatic thinking. Well-accepted theories can take years to be overturned by better evidence. Also note that science isn't a monolith. Not everything is an easily reproducible experiment. A lot of things studied by scientists where reproducible experiments are not feasible are far more murky, data derived from such sources can be "common knowledge" for decades before being challenged and overturned, and those doing the challenging are frequently treated as heretics initially.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@Perv Otaku

but declaring them mutually exclusive is just as foolish.


So true. Many atheists say this as if it will convince the religious to reject god in favor of science.

The reality is that by positioning science as being opposed to religion, they drive the religious to reject science.

Replies:   cave jug
cave jug
Updated:

@Dominions Son

Well, well, there is much more to say about the subject isn't there.

Gentleman, illusion, however convincing is still an illusion! While many over the years were inserting god in the huge gaps science had no answers to, the god had no choice, but to recede further and further back into the history of our ancestors.

I know, there are two billion Christians, 1.7 billion Muslims, and then the rest of us.

The silliness of monotheistic religion is in the very first page, but a believer in supernatural can not see it. The brain has been "infected" at the very young age by the people young child trusts the most. "God did it! Do not ask a silly question"

I am willing to put both of my hands on the chopping block and prove the following; if concept of god was introduced to a 15 year old, the laughter would be thundering.

As is, science takes the second if not the third stage, story of Noah, talking snake, walking on water and fun god had with Job, takes the first.

And The United States of Amnesia is sliding further and further down the scale of science and discovery.

Once a proud and leading nation, plays the second fiddle to China and India. Well done, Christian Right! We thank you!

Replies:   richardshagrin
richardshagrin
Updated:

@cave jug

Where do Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy enter into this dichotomy between Science and Religion? Certainly not science. Probably not religion, not Christianity even though Mr. Claus may claim to be an alias of Saint Nicholas, who was a bishop in Turkey and gave gifts, if I recall how the saint was morphed into Santa Claus in the red suit, white beard and overweight sleigh rider with 8 reindeer, or maybe 9 with Rudolph.

I don't know if the USA is sliding down a scale. Maybe from democracy to republic to oligarchy. I doubt our problems arise from either Science or Religion. Maybe from Muslims that hate us makes it religion. If we weren't "Christian" they likely would hate us even more. There is a place in Muslim world view for people of the book (Christians and Jews) who submit and pay a tax. Atheists just get killed.

Replies:   cave jug
cave jug
Updated:

@richardshagrin

Where do Santa and bunny come from? Ask people of the cloth, they claim to know it all. From the history I was introduced to, Christianity was merging with pagan beliefs and variations to local folklore has produced "many shades of gray,"

As far as USA sliding down the toilet, get on the road and compare the life elsewhere with the life at home, and you'll see it.

richardshagrin

@cave jug

It may be population pressure. Governments that worked for far fewer than 7 billion people or 300 million in the USA, are under pressure keeping far more bodies fed and amused. There is also the rising expectations fed by media. Not everyone can live like a millionaire as portrayed on Television on in motion pictures, or whatever the current media are. But people, at least young people either expect to or want to. When the pressure in a boiler raises too high, absent a safety valve, explosions occur. New frontiers used to be a safety valve. Wars were another, to mobilize a nation to forget about their current situation. Wars now between nuclear powers are too dangerous. We still seem to get lots of police actions. There is always an enemy if you need one.

BlinkReader

@cave jug

You poor guys even don't know important parts of your history, when you don't know this -
Where do Santa and bunny came from?

From advertising, to be precise - from good old american advertising.
(Google for "Coca Cola add" from 1930s :D , and Bunny adds also - search for "vintage easter advertisements" ...)

If we are going to be honest, this two characters are from much older legends and stories - but global popularity they got from advertising...

And people are really showing how stupid they are believing in all this shit they see and hear in ads ...

koehlerrock

@Crumbly Writer

"In The Wake Of Pigs"

It makes me sick that it's hard to distinguish,
An honest leader who preaches a cause;
That's not made, and not based,
On the profit they'll receive from telling the world.

What line divides you from the seeders,
Who sow without growing believers?
You point and you judge,
Forgetting that their faith is molded by your lead.

So where am I to find,
A voice that's pure and urging me to climb?
There's gotta be more, there's gotta be peace!
I've joined them and clawed at that ground for my feed!
I've seen bloodshed but the wounds still remain!
I left, I fled, I called, I cursed!
I chased from certain to searching!
But nothing has answered deserving faith.

Back to Top