Republicans and Nut-Ball Religions... (Its a thing)

[89Hen]

Just got back from the field dedication at my daughter's alma mater. So glad I chose Catholic schools for them. Nice to have people who really care about each other and giving back. Also nice to have prayers for all the students and athletes that will grace the field for years to come.

[Brock Landers]

Just got back from the field dedication at my daughter's alma mater. So glad I chose Catholic schools for them. Nice to have people who really care about each other and giving back. Also nice to have prayers for all the students and athletes that will grace the field for years to come.

I can't tell if you're trolling yourself

[JohnStOnge]

But the government still isn't supposed to establish a state religion, right?

Actually, by the Constitution, that is correct but only for the national government. There is no prohibition in the Constitution and, in fact, States had official State Christian churches for decades after the Constitution was ratified. Also, the fact that there was a prohibition on Congress making a law with respect tot he establishment of religion pretty obviously did not mean there was no association between Christianity and government. All you have to do to confirm that is go to what I've referenced many times on this board:

Congress appropriated funds to hire a Christian Chaplain and held Christian Church Services in the House Chamber shortly after the First Amendment was ratified. And the author of the "Separation of Church and State" language so misconstrued today attended those Christian Church services.

[JohnStOnge]

Seriously, what's nut ball about secular humanism? I've never met one but it would seem
They'd be quite reasonable people. Is there something dastardly I'm missing?

Secular Humanism is a house of cards because adherents hold that you can rationalize a system of morality in the absence of the "something else" outside of humankind that sets the rules. The basic idea is that what is "good" is what makes humans happy, healthy, etc.

There is no basis for thinking that is "good" in the absence of the something else. They believe in a "consequential ethics" system. And they're looking at the consequences with respect to human populations.

You are a nut ball if you think you can justify a system of ethics on that basis. That's because, in the absence of the "something else," there is no basis for thinking making people happy and health is "good" while making people miserable is "bad."

In short: They're totally kidding themselves. They want to get away from the idea of the "something else" while pretending they can justify some system of intrinsic morality in the absence of it. And they can't.

[kalm]

Seriously, what's nut ball about secular humanism? I've never met one but it would seem
They'd be quite reasonable people. Is there something dastardly I'm missing?

Secular Humanism is a house of cards because adherents hold that you can rationalize a system of morality in the absence of the "something else" outside of humankind that sets the rules. The basic idea is that what is "good" is what makes humans happy, healthy, etc.

There is no basis for thinking that is "good" in the absence of the something else. They believe in a "consequential ethics" system. And they're looking at the consequences with respect to human populations.

You are a nut ball if you think you can justify a system of ethics on that basis. That's because, in the absence of the "something else," there is no basis for thinking making people happy and health is "good" while making people miserable is "bad."

In short: They're totally kidding themselves. They want to get away from the idea of the "something else" while pretending they can justify some system of intrinsic morality in the absence of it. And they can't.

Yet here we are.

[JohnStOnge]

Here's an interesting quote from the Secular Humanist web site at https://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php/3260" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;:

Secular humanism is philosophically naturalistic. It holds that nature (the world of everyday physical experience) is all there is, and that reliable knowledge is best obtained when we query nature using the scientific method. Naturalism asserts that supernatural entities like God do not exist, and warns us that knowledge gained without appeal to the natural world and without impartial review by multiple observers is unreliable.

Here's the problem: The scientific method cannot possibly be used to infer that supernatural entities like God do not exist. So if you're saying that reliable knowledge is best obtained through the scientific method then you turn right around and say that you assert that supernatural entities do not exist you are saying you're asserting something as knowledge that was not reliable or not obtained in the best way. You're just asserting it.

Most Secular Humanists, I think, are just going along worshiping "science" when they don't even know what science is. They don't even have the basic knowledge to allow them to think critically about what scientTISTS say. They can't recognize circumstances in which the scientific method wasn't really applied. And believe me when I tell you that there are a LOT of circumstances like that; where things are published in revered journals when the scientific method was NOT applied.

But it's chic to be "in" with the science thing. ScienTISTS say it so it must be true.

[kalm]

Here's an interesting quote from the Secular Humanist web site at https://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php/3260" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;:

Secular humanism is philosophically naturalistic. It holds that nature (the world of everyday physical experience) is all there is, and that reliable knowledge is best obtained when we query nature using the scientific method. Naturalism asserts that supernatural entities like God do not exist, and warns us that knowledge gained without appeal to the natural world and without impartial review by multiple observers is unreliable.

Here's the problem: The scientific method cannot possibly be used to infer that supernatural entities like God do not exist. So if you're saying that reliable knowledge is best obtained through the scientific method then you turn right around and say that you assert that supernatural entities do not exist you are saying you're asserting something as knowledge that was not reliable or not obtained in the best way. You're just asserting it.

Most Secular Humanists, I think, are just going along worshiping "science" when they don't even know what science is. They don't even have the basic knowledge to allow them to think critically about what scientTISTS say. They can't recognize circumstances in which the scientific method wasn't really applied. And believe me when I tell you that there are a LOT of circumstances like that; where things are published in revered journals when the scientific method was NOT applied.

But it's chic to be "in" with the science thing. ScienTISTS say it so it must be true.

Versus?

[GannonFan]

Here's an interesting quote from the Secular Humanist web site at https://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php/3260" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;:

Secular humanism is philosophically naturalistic. It holds that nature (the world of everyday physical experience) is all there is, and that reliable knowledge is best obtained when we query nature using the scientific method. Naturalism asserts that supernatural entities like God do not exist, and warns us that knowledge gained without appeal to the natural world and without impartial review by multiple observers is unreliable.

Here's the problem: The scientific method cannot possibly be used to infer that supernatural entities like God do not exist. So if you're saying that reliable knowledge is best obtained through the scientific method then you turn right around and say that you assert that supernatural entities do not exist you are saying you're asserting something as knowledge that was not reliable or not obtained in the best way. You're just asserting it.

Most Secular Humanists, I think, are just going along worshiping "science" when they don't even know what science is. They don't even have the basic knowledge to allow them to think critically about what scientTISTS say. They can't recognize circumstances in which the scientific method wasn't really applied. And believe me when I tell you that there are a LOT of circumstances like that; where things are published in revered journals when the scientific method was NOT applied.

But it's chic to be "in" with the science thing. ScienTISTS say it so it must be true.

What's always interesting is the number of scientists who are also religious. It's a much larger number than what most people today would think. Being scientific in no way precludes being religious. There are many things we realize we probably don't know about our world or our universe, probably a lot more things than we actually know. Believing in a god-like entity, which can't be proved or disproven, is not really outside the box thinking with that in mind.

[Ibanez]

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion,- as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen......

That statement from the Treaty of Tripoli is not some great Statement about the nature of the United States. It's something placed into a treaty at the time because it was advantageous to do so. As you can read at https://w3nws.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/ ... -say-this/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; you can find another United States treaty that began with this:

In the Name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.

That's invoking Christianity. Acting as though a Statement from one treaty in which some diplomat responsible for writing the treaty wrote something to make Muslims happy is some kind of definitive confirmation that Christianity was not involved in the genesis of the United States is absurd. It's done all the time. You see that quote all over the place. But it's ridiculous.

Some colonies were founded on the basis of religious freedom (i.e. free to practice their religion but not any others.) So, if you want to say Maryland was founded as a religious colony, then go ahead. You'd be correct. But you cannot say that the United States of America was founded to be a Christian nation. That just isn't true. You cannot provide proof that the United States was founded as a Christian country i.e. a religious country, because it does not exist. Don't point to " In God We Trust" on money or anything like that b/c they had nothing to do with the founding of the nation.

Spoiler: show

Please don't bring out the Declaration of Independence because of it's use of the word "creator." It didn't found the USA any more than the Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves.

[Ibanez]

But the government still isn't supposed to establish a state religion, right?

Actually, by the Constitution, that is correct but only for the national government. There is no prohibition in the Constitution and, in fact, States had official State Christian churches for decades after the Constitution was ratified. Also, the fact that there was a prohibition on Congress making a law with respect tot he establishment of religion pretty obviously did not mean there was no association between Christianity and government. All you have to do to confirm that is go to what I've referenced many times on this board:

Congress appropriated funds to hire a Christian Chaplain and held Christian Church Services in the House Chamber shortly after the First Amendment was ratified. And the author of the "Separation of Church and State" language so misconstrued today attended those Christian Church services.

Appropriating funds for a Christian Chaplain to minister to the House Chamber doesn't make this a Christian nation. Christian men (well, a majority anyway) practicing a belief isn't proof. The governing document of this nation, this Republic, which was ratified by all the States does not allow for the establishment of a national religion. That isn't to say a STATE will have one, but the United States of America will not.

Do you know the difference between the United States of America and an individual state like Maine? You're confusing the two and using precedent of one to act as proof for the other.


In the Constitution, religion was deliberately kept at arm's length from the state. Going against the status quo, there would be no religious tests for federal officeholders, no establishment of any national religion and no congressional interference with individual citizens' free exercise of their own faith.

The Founding Fathers worried that religion would corrupt the state and, conversely, that the state would corrupt religion. They experienced this first hand. They understood the danger.

James Madison challenged the idea that religion in politics would lead men to "cooperate for their common good" and states that it would make them "vex and oppress each other." He praised the new Constitution for keeping faith out of federal office-holding, which would be more inclusive of individuals "of every description, whether native or adoptive, whether young or old, and without regard to poverty or wealth, or to any particular profession of religious faith."

The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, begun by George Washington, signed by John Adams and ratified unanimously by a Senate still half-filled with signers of the Constitution, announced outright that "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."


So excuse me, If I take the word of the men that actually founded this country over someone who is cherry picking and distorting historical facts and ignoring historical context.

[Ibanez]

JSO, I get what you are trying to say. But allow me to simplify things.

Some colonies were founded as religious havens, and were under the rule of England (an Anglican country)
We broke bonds with that country.
We did away with religious prerequisites for holding office, owning land, voting, etc...
America fought a war against a religious country. Why in the hell would the founders then create a religious country after the victory?


America was NOT founded as a Christian nation.
America WAS founded by Christians (and a few Jews).

There is a difference.

[kalm]

"Natures God" appears in the Declaration.

Clearly we were founded as a pagan nation.

[89Hen]

</script>t(this);" onfocus="initInsertions();" class="inputbox">

Just got back from the field dedication at my daughter's alma mater. So glad I chose Catholic schools for them. Nice to have people who really care about each other and giving back. Also nice to have prayers for all the students and athletes that will grace the field for years to come.

I can't tell if you're trolling yourself

Why's that?

[Ibanez]

"Natures God" appears in the Declaration.

Clearly we were founded as a pagan nation.

Clearly. The DoI did 2 things:

Announce that the 13 colonies were at war with England
Announced that the 13 colonies were sovereign states

[Chizzang]

Holy underwear..!!!
I gotta get me some

The argument is simple Cha Chi so try to follow along
Ancient religions - such as Catholicism - are shrouded in mystery
as well as having a long history of being handed down from generation to generation

Mormonism - for example - is NOT at all shrouded in mystery
Virtually every single aspect if its history and creation are known
from the convicted swindler who created it to the make-it-up-as we-go along rule book

Any adult who actually believes in Mormonism is by default exposing an element of STUPIDITY
in the same way any adult who gets suckered into a Ponzi Scheme

Yes you can be a smart guy and get suckered
But due diligence is a minimum requirement for one to be truly considered "Smart"

7th Day Adventists and Mormons require a level of personal delusion
and a true lack of insight that I will not dismiss and lump in with Catholics
Particularly these days as the Catholic Church is showing remarkable insight and judgment

ah ok I get it

you need that 2000 year veneer on your magical bearded feller in the sky until he can be declared legit

you become less imaginary and are promoted to the rank of Mystical +2 (cold and dark magic resistance)

so sayeth Clitoris

Actually, Yeah... kinda
true mysticism has an ancient clouded past which lends to its credibility
Something that happened in 1953 (Scientology)
and can be tracked directly to the originator saying "I'm going to make up a religion"
and "Watch how stupid people really are"

That's something that adults should be savvy enough to work through...
Much like Mormonism and 7th Day Adventists
The exact moment in time that it was created is well documented
The exact purpose of the creation is well documented

So yeah...
I am far less critical of a Catholic or a Muslim than I am a Scientologist or Mormon
To be sure I'm critical of all of them - that is certain - but stupidity can be measured
in the same way Intelligence can be measured

[CID1990]

ah ok I get it

you need that 2000 year veneer on your magical bearded feller in the sky until he can be declared legit

you become less imaginary and are promoted to the rank of Mystical +2 (cold and dark magic resistance)

so sayeth Clitoris

Actually, Yeah... kinda
true mysticism has an ancient clouded past which lends to its credibility
Something that happened in 1953 (Scientology)
and can be tracked directly to the originator saying "I'm going to make up a religion"
and "Watch how stupid people really are"

That's something that adults should be savvy enough to work through...
Much like Mormonism and 7th Day Adventists
The exact moment in time that it was created is well documented
The exact purpose of the creation is well documented

So yeah...
I am far less critical of a Catholic or a Muslim than I am a Scientologist or Mormon
To be sure I'm critical of all of them - that is certain - but stupidity can be measured
in the same way Intelligence can be measured

i find no credibility gradient when it comes to religions

just because some were founded before the science age doesn't make them less imaginary

[houndawg]

Hillary is ruled by corporate America, dummy.

Oh...wait...

So when is Bernie going to go after Her Entitledness on that very point?

So far he seems to be sticking with issues.

[houndawg]

Actually, Yeah... kinda
true mysticism has an ancient clouded past which lends to its credibility
Something that happened in 1953 (Scientology)
and can be tracked directly to the originator saying "I'm going to make up a religion"
and "Watch how stupid people really are"

That's something that adults should be savvy enough to work through...
Much like Mormonism and 7th Day Adventists
The exact moment in time that it was created is well documented
The exact purpose of the creation is well documented

So yeah...
I am far less critical of a Catholic or a Muslim than I am a Scientologist or Mormon
To be sure I'm critical of all of them - that is certain - but stupidity can be measured
in the same way Intelligence can be measured

i find no credibility gradient when it comes to religions

just because some were founded before the science age doesn't make them less imaginary

No less imaginary, no less about control, and no less of a sucker's game; the difference being that before the age of science the masses gravitated toward religion in an effort to find answers to big questions. Today they gravitate towards religion to avoid finding those answers.

[houndawg]

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion,- as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen......

That statement from the Treaty of Tripoli is not some great Statement about the nature of the United States. It's something placed into a treaty at the time because it was advantageous to do so. As you can read at https://w3nws.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/ ... -say-this/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; you can find another United States treaty that began with this:

In the Name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.

That's invoking Christianity. Acting as though a Statement from one treaty in which some diplomat responsible for writing the treaty wrote something to make Muslims happy is some kind of definitive confirmation that Christianity was not involved in the genesis of the United States is absurd. It's done all the time. You see that quote all over the place. But it's ridiculous.

You say that like its true, John, when in fact its only your opinion a couple of centuries removed.

Please.

[Ivytalk]

So when is Bernie going to go after Her Entitledness on that very point?

So far he seems to be sticking with issues.

Precious few issues. He's just a broken record on income inequality. That's his whole schtick.

[houndawg]

So far he seems to be sticking with issues.

Precious few issues. He's just a broken record on income inequality. That's his whole schtick.

You're unhappy with his lack of personal attacks? He seems to be doing quite well even with being frozen out of the so-called liberal main stream media. Biggest draw of any candidate but you never see him get the attention of even the fourth tier conk candidates.

[Chizzang]

Actually, Yeah... kinda
true mysticism has an ancient clouded past which lends to its credibility
Something that happened in 1953 (Scientology)
and can be tracked directly to the originator saying "I'm going to make up a religion"
and "Watch how stupid people really are"

That's something that adults should be savvy enough to work through...
Much like Mormonism and 7th Day Adventists
The exact moment in time that it was created is well documented
The exact purpose of the creation is well documented

So yeah...
I am far less critical of a Catholic or a Muslim than I am a Scientologist or Mormon
To be sure I'm critical of all of them - that is certain - but stupidity can be measured
in the same way Intelligence can be measured

i find no credibility gradient when it comes to religions

just because some were founded before the science age doesn't make them less imaginary

I wish it was just that black and white with matters of faith...
But I really don't think it is

For lack of a better way to say this:

Taking a bad idea
and piling on a mountain load more new bad ideas on top
is actually "dumber" than the one original bad idea

compound that with the notion that the "original" bad idea was actually helpful in its inception
I truly believe "intent" should be factored into this equation
Mormonism and Scientology and almost every other recent "spin-off"
are obviously fraudulent when studying their early period development

I stand by my assessment - but have no real issue with your black and white view

[CID1990]

i find no credibility gradient when it comes to religions

just because some were founded before the science age doesn't make them less imaginary

I wish it was just that black and white with matters of faith...
But I really don't think it is

For lack of a better way to say this:

Taking a bad idea
and piling on a mountain load more new bad ideas on top
is actually "dumber" than the one original bad idea

compound that with the notion that the "original" bad idea was actually helpful in its inception
I truly believe "intent" should be factored into this equation
Mormonism and Scientology and almost every other recent "spin-off"
are obviously fraudulent when studying their early period development

I stand by my assessment - but have no real issue with your black and white view

Never in my wildest dreams did I think I could tease you in virtually defending some religions

I'll leave you alone before Joltin Joe jumps in to defend your honor!

[Chizzang]

I wish it was just that black and white with matters of faith...
But I really don't think it is

For lack of a better way to say this:

Taking a bad idea
and piling on a mountain load more new bad ideas on top
is actually "dumber" than the one original bad idea

compound that with the notion that the "original" bad idea was actually helpful in its inception
I truly believe "intent" should be factored into this equation
Mormonism and Scientology and almost every other recent "spin-off"
are obviously fraudulent when studying their early period development

I stand by my assessment - but have no real issue with your black and white view

Never in my wildest dreams did I think I could tease you in virtually defending some religions

I'll leave you alone before Joltin Joe jumps in to defend your honor!

I like Joe

[Ivytalk]

Precious few issues. He's just a broken record on income inequality. That's his whole schtick.

You're unhappy with his lack of personal attacks? He seems to be doing quite well even with being frozen out of the so-called liberal main stream media. Biggest draw of any candidate but you never see him get the attention of even the fourth tier conk candidates.

That's not what I said, dawg. I said that Bernie is a one-trick pony on the issues: after income inequality, he's got nothin'.

And he's had plenty of media coverage, way more than the GOP "undercard" candidates for certain . Where have you been? He's a veritable Gene McCarthy.