Guest Neil Kelsey Posted December 14, 2006 Posted December 14, 2006 Al Klein wrote: > On 14 Dec 2006 10:32:58 -0800, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > >> Under the rules of logic, one is not allowed to question whether > >> a postulate is true because, by definition, a postulate is accepted > >> as true without proof. > > > >That is the lamest attempt at an argument I've seen in a long time. > > It's the equivalent of "I claim X, and I claim that claims can't be > questioned because, by my claim, that's true. So you have to accept > X". > > I guess the formal fallacy is "assuming the conclusion that assuming a > conclusion is valid", or something equally recursive. Yeah. Fastest one to make a claim wins! I think it's also the adult equivalent of "it's my football so if you don't play by my rules I'm taking my football home." Haven't seen that one in a long time. Grade 2, I think. Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted December 14, 2006 Posted December 14, 2006 On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 14:13:37 -0500, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: - Refer: <ng83o25nhishk635c1t17kgm2rj6or86ae@4ax.com> >On 13 Dec 2006 22:15:26 -0800, "Chris" <look2god@gmail.com> wrote: > >>Al Klein wrote: > >>> Science doesn't provide evidence, it investigates observed evidence. >>> And there's never been any evidence of any god. > >>> Are you beginning to see the common thread? > >>Sure, you've been brain washed into thinking that everything can be explained >>through science > >So post evidence that I'm wrong. > >> and you risk your eternity on a belief system that has many gaps. > >Sorry, that threat only works on people who haven't died. Those of us >who have know what lies on the other side of death. Yep. Nothing. -- Quote
Guest Someone Posted December 14, 2006 Posted December 14, 2006 On 12/14/06 11:09 AM, in article as63o2t9f3mjr8c805guplv87pqv9o2fl4@4ax.com, "Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 21:33:00 -0800, Someone > <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> wrote: > .. .. <<SNIP>> .. >> From what I understood, he was >> basically saying that the Big Bang had a beginning and has an end... But >> that is in "real time." There is another time perpendicular to "real time" >> called Imaginary time--but it isn't the kind of time we experience--in which >> the singularity can exist without breaking the laws of physics (apologies, I >> am really hazy about this and need to read Hawking's BHOT again). It was >> way out there and frankly sounded a lot like more random imaginings from a >> brilliant scientist (Hawking has been wrong before, and admits it... So I >> wouldn't count on one of his theories being completely infallible). > > It is brilliant - and it's Feynman's concept, not Hawking's. > Point taken... I keep referring to Hawking because he was the guy I first heard the term from--and he is the guy, I think, that popularized the concept. >> He could be right, of course... But, in my opinion, so could those >> Creationists >> (and their model is so much simpler!) > > How can something more complex than the universe (God) be simpler than > the universe? > "God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and He created everything" is an extremely simple postulate. It answers every question regarding the anomalies we perceive--if you're willing to buy off on that postulate. It certainly a lot easier to assimilate than concepts of "the Big Crunch" or "real imaginary time." But of course, just because it's simpler doesn't mean it's right (Newtonian physics, for example, is nice and simple--whereas quantum-level physics makes me want to slit my wrists. ). >>>> But some people have a problem understanding >>>> that others can believe that God exhibits the same behavior. > >>> There's never been any evidence of any god. > >> Still doesn't mean that gods don't exist. > > Doesn't mean that 10^37 gods don't exist, but no one wastes time > researching all of them, so why waste time researching one member of > that set? The Christian one is no different, in possibility of > existence, than any of the others. > I don't suggest researching any of them (since, as pointed out, testing the supernatural is an exercise in futility). I do concede that there is a possibility that God exists (or even 10^37 gods exist)... Hence I refuse to bicker with both atheists and deists about it--and urge everyone just to respect each others beliefs. >> So it remains a personal choice which will ultimately be tested when I die. > > It's been tested each time anyone dies. And, from the few reports we > have from those who died and came back to life, the test failed every > time. > I've seen "first hand reports" on near death experiences--and really don't know how reliable they are (they sound too "religious" for my palate). Most of the NDE's I've read about actually contradict the atheist doctrine; many of the subjects still have a "consciousness" for example. So if you have a site of more scientifically controlled NDE's, I'd really like a reference (I've pretty much regulated all NDE reports as being a bunch of hooey). >> You seriously aren't ridiculing >> all these people for making a personal choice that has absolutely no impact >> on you, are you? > > You seriously wouldn't ridicule a supposedly sane adult for still > believing in Santa Claus, would you? As long as that person's belief in Santa Claus doesn't affect me at all (or rather, affects me detrimentally--I wouldn't mind getting a Ferrari from a guy because he believes in Santa Claus), then no, I wouldn't ridicule or judge him. It's when he crosses that line. I already have my beliefs and I am adult enough to test them rationally myself, I don't need someone who's already fixated that they know The Answer to try to bash it into my head (that goes for theists and atheists alike!). Quote
Guest Jim07D6 Posted December 14, 2006 Posted December 14, 2006 Someone <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> said: > > > >On 12/14/06 11:09 AM, in article as63o2t9f3mjr8c805guplv87pqv9o2fl4@4ax.com, >"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: <...> >> >> How can something more complex than the universe (God) be simpler than >> the universe? >> > >"God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and He created everything" is an >extremely simple postulate. So it "This car can go from 0 to 60 in 3 seconds" but doing that is more complex. > It answers every question regarding the >anomalies we perceive--if you're willing to buy off on that postulate. It is not an answer. It is a response. >It >certainly a lot easier to assimilate than concepts of "the Big Crunch" or >"real imaginary time." It is easy because there is nothing in it that inspires analysis of its content. It is as easy as "Moo" as a response. >But of course, just because it's simpler doesn't >mean it's right (Newtonian physics, for example, is nice and simple--whereas >quantum-level physics makes me want to slit my wrists. ). The criteria for acceptance of an explanation are more rigorous than that it he "right" since its being right is not really available to us. <...> >I don't suggest researching any of them (since, as pointed out, testing the >supernatural is an exercise in futility). I do concede that there is a >possibility that God exists (or even 10^37 gods exist)... What is this possibility other than an admission of ignorance to the contrary --, an argument ad ignoriantiam? >Hence I refuse to >bicker with both atheists and deists about it--and urge everyone just to >respect each others beliefs. Respect those who are willing to respect you. -- Jim07D6 Quote
Guest Someone Posted December 14, 2006 Posted December 14, 2006 It's been a long time since taking Geometry where we had to learn how to do proofs... But the quoted post is true: a postulate is a statement that is assumed to be true. To jog your memory (I had to think about it myself...) Euclid's famous postulates were: (1) A straight line segment can be drawn joining any two points. (2) Any straight line segment can be extended indefinitely in a straight line (3) If given any straight line segment, a circle can be drawn having the segment as radius and the other endpoint as its center. (4) All right angles are equal (5) Parallel lines never intersect If you recall, Euclid's 5th postulate has never been proven as a theorem... Indeed many mathematicians (Lobachevsky, Reimann, etc.) actually make sensible "universes" in which parallel lines do intersect (sometimes even more than once). But--to get back to the topic--Euclidean geometry relies on the 5th postulate. Hyperbolic, spherical, elliptic geometries all assume a different 5th postulate... The postulate does not have to be "proven" it is assumed to be true. Of course, that's all just semantics until someone comes along and finds a proof that proves that the postulate is false (note that the discovery of other geometries that were also consistent with the first four postulate didn't mean that Euclid was wrong!) Ah... 7th grade geometry, sometimes I wish I could go back... On 12/14/06 11:31 AM, in article he93o2h4d0jjvd570lavcc6f9ofs5s4nre@4ax.com, "Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > On 14 Dec 2006 10:32:58 -0800, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> > wrote: > >>> Under the rules of logic, one is not allowed to question whether >>> a postulate is true because, by definition, a postulate is accepted >>> as true without proof. >> >> That is the lamest attempt at an argument I've seen in a long time. > > It's the equivalent of "I claim X, and I claim that claims can't be > questioned because, by my claim, that's true. So you have to accept > X". > > I guess the formal fallacy is "assuming the conclusion that assuming a > conclusion is valid", or something equally recursive. Quote
Guest Neil Kelsey Posted December 14, 2006 Posted December 14, 2006 Someone wrote: > It's been a long time since taking Geometry where we had to learn how to do > proofs... But the quoted post is true: a postulate is a statement that is > assumed to be true. That's true, that's what a postulate is. But "God created the universe" is not a postulate just because Samuel J Heywood says it is. You're not going to get me to assume that that statement is true. It's a hypothesis. Quote
Guest Someone Posted December 15, 2006 Posted December 15, 2006 On 12/14/06 3:16 PM, in article ahm3o2pnbg9d4r3g9beomk5ak8rmsg9m3t@4ax.com, "Jim07D6" <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote: > Someone <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> said: > >> >> >> >> On 12/14/06 11:09 AM, in article as63o2t9f3mjr8c805guplv87pqv9o2fl4@4ax.com, >> "Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > <...> >>> >>> How can something more complex than the universe (God) be simpler than >>> the universe? >>> >> >> "God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and He created everything" is an >> extremely simple postulate. > > So it "This car can go from 0 to 60 in 3 seconds" but doing that is > more complex. > >> It answers every question regarding the >> anomalies we perceive--if you're willing to buy off on that postulate. > > It is not an answer. It is a response. > Actually, it is a "postulate." And see how it goes: Q. "I noticed that there are these 500 million year old dinosaur bones" A. "God put them there." or A. "Yeah, God made dinosaurs too." Or Q. "I noticed that there is this level electromagnetic radiation everywhere I point my radio telescope." A. "Yup, God put that there." I said is was simple, I didn't say necessarily that it was scientifically rational. .... SNIP ... > <...> >> I don't suggest researching any of them (since, as pointed out, testing the >> supernatural is an exercise in futility). I do concede that there is a >> possibility that God exists (or even 10^37 gods exist)... > > What is this possibility other than an admission of ignorance to the > contrary --, an argument ad ignoriantiam? > No, in my circle of colleagues it's called "keeping an open mind." I try to not discard an idea until there is proof to the contrary. The concept of "God" being untestable (and in many respects, ahem, circular) defies disproving Him... Hence, I still concede that He may exist. Just like, btw, how I acknowledge that the next period I type will coincide with a massive supernova of the sun. Well, I was wrong there, wasn't I? >> Hence I refuse to >> bicker with both atheists and deists about it--and urge everyone just to >> respect each others beliefs. > > Respect those who are willing to respect you. > > I respect you. <<news-group hug>> hehe > -- Jim07D6 Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted December 15, 2006 Posted December 15, 2006 On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 14:21:32 -0800, Someone <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> wrote: >On 12/14/06 11:09 AM, in article as63o2t9f3mjr8c805guplv87pqv9o2fl4@4ax.com, >"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: >> On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 21:33:00 -0800, Someone >> <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> wrote: >>> He could be right, of course... But, in my opinion, so could those >>> Creationists >>> (and their model is so much simpler!) >> How can something more complex than the universe (God) be simpler than >> the universe? >"God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and He created everything" is an >extremely simple postulate. "The universe is too complex to not be created" complicates it beyond understandability, though. A complex universe is simpler than the more complex creator of that universe. >I don't suggest researching any of them (since, as pointed out, testing the >supernatural is an exercise in futility). I do concede that there is a >possibility that God exists (or even 10^37 gods exist)... Hence I refuse to >bicker with both atheists and deists about it--and urge everyone just to >respect each others beliefs. Beliefs don't automatically deserve respect - some ideas deserve utmost respect, some deserve none and some deserve nothing but contempt. But the fact that someone believes something is not a sufficient reason to respect that belief. >> It's been tested each time anyone dies. And, from the few reports we >> have from those who died and came back to life, the test failed every >> time. >I've seen "first hand reports" on near death experiences A NDE isn't death, it's just random neuron firing due to anoxia. You may not give science credit for being able to determine whether there's a god, but give it credit for being able to investigate scientific things. Neurobiology isn't rocket science, it's just brain surgery. >So if you have a >site of more scientifically controlled NDE's, I'd really like a reference I'm not talking about NDEs, I'm talking about deaths - clinical deaths. You won't find reports on web sites (and a scientifically controlled death is called murder), but you'll find reports here on alt.atheism. Michael Gray can tell you, I can tell you and others can tell you. >>> You seriously aren't ridiculing >>> all these people for making a personal choice that has absolutely no impact >>> on you, are you? >> You seriously wouldn't ridicule a supposedly sane adult for still >> believing in Santa Claus, would you? >As long as that person's belief in Santa Claus doesn't affect me at all (or >rather, affects me detrimentally--I wouldn't mind getting a Ferrari from a >guy because he believes in Santa Claus), then no, I wouldn't ridicule or >judge him. It's when he crosses that line. I already have my beliefs and I >am adult enough to test them rationally myself, I don't need someone who's >already fixated that they know The Answer to try to bash it into my head >(that goes for theists and atheists alike!). So if the Santa Clausist wanted laws passed that were detrimental to you, based solely on his belief in Santa, you'd try to stop him from getting them passed? That's what atheists are trying to do. -- rukbat at optonline dot net "It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning." - Calvin & Hobbes (random sig, produced by SigChanger) Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted December 15, 2006 Posted December 15, 2006 On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 16:07:29 -0800, Someone <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> wrote: >No, in my circle of colleagues it's called "keeping an open mind." I try to >not discard an idea until there is proof to the contrary. That's called "keeping your mind so open that your brains fall out". There's no evidence that Leprechauns, kobolds, the entire Greek and Roman pantheons and Martian civilization don't exist, but those are all ideas. So are at least a few million other things that rational people don't waste time on. -- rukbat at optonline dot net "A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand." -- Bertrand Russell. (random sig, produced by SigChanger) Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted December 15, 2006 Posted December 15, 2006 On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 15:51:08 -0800, Someone <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> wrote: >It's been a long time since taking Geometry where we had to learn how to do >proofs... But the quoted post is true: a postulate is a statement that is >assumed to be true. By people qualified to decide whether it's true or not. "Parallel line segments don't meet no matter how far extended" isn't assumed to be true by people who know nothing about geometry. "Gods exist" isn't accepted as true by those qualified to decide whether it's true or not. The opinions of those not qualified don't matter. -- rukbat at optonline dot net "Does it ever amaze anyone else how little faith some heterosexuals have in heterosexuality? It's supposed to be this god-given human instinct that only the warped and perverted ever stray from; but, it seems, if we once tell our straight children a message even as mild as "some people are gay, and that's all right," that'll be enough to send lil' Suzy into the arms of women forever. It's a wonder the race has survived this long, really..." - ENNEAD@deimos.ucs.umass.edu Charles M Seaton (21 Dec 1994) (random sig, produced by SigChanger) Quote
Guest Someone Posted December 15, 2006 Posted December 15, 2006 On 12/14/06 5:23 PM, in article v2u3o2lvlmp9errmcltursd5gmagv80lk3@4ax.com, "Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 16:07:29 -0800, Someone > <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> wrote: > >> No, in my circle of colleagues it's called "keeping an open mind." I try to >> not discard an idea until there is proof to the contrary. > > That's called "keeping your mind so open that your brains fall out". > There's no evidence that Leprechauns, kobolds, the entire Greek and > Roman pantheons and Martian civilization don't exist, but those are > all ideas. So are at least a few million other things that rational > people don't waste time on. And really, that's fine with me if you want to believe that. As for me, as far as I know, my brains are still intact where they ought to be. Quote
Guest panamfloyd@hotmail.com Posted December 15, 2006 Posted December 15, 2006 Neil Kelsey wrote: > > >-- In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth... Your > > >research just might find God > > > > Just as soon as you post an objective observation of a god there will > > be some research. Looking for something you want to exist isn't > > research, it's religion. Seconded. -Panama Floyd, Atl. aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA! EAC Martian Commander Plonked by Kadaitcha Man Sept 06 "..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next." -Mark Twain Religious societies are less moral than secular ones: http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html Quote
Guest Someone Posted December 15, 2006 Posted December 15, 2006 On 12/14/06 5:18 PM, in article 66t3o299nmgee78689401mlcmda4fl7ve8@4ax.com, "Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 14:21:32 -0800, Someone > <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> wrote: > >> On 12/14/06 11:09 AM, in article as63o2t9f3mjr8c805guplv87pqv9o2fl4@4ax.com, >> "Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: >>> On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 21:33:00 -0800, Someone >>> <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> wrote: > >>>> He could be right, of course... But, in my opinion, so could those >>>> Creationists >>>> (and their model is so much simpler!) > >>> How can something more complex than the universe (God) be simpler than >>> the universe? > >> "God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and He created everything" is an >> extremely simple postulate. > > "The universe is too complex to not be created" complicates it beyond > understandability, though. A complex universe is simpler than the > more complex creator of that universe. > >> I don't suggest researching any of them (since, as pointed out, testing the >> supernatural is an exercise in futility). I do concede that there is a >> possibility that God exists (or even 10^37 gods exist)... Hence I refuse to >> bicker with both atheists and deists about it--and urge everyone just to >> respect each others beliefs. > > Beliefs don't automatically deserve respect - some ideas deserve > utmost respect, some deserve none and some deserve nothing but > contempt. But the fact that someone believes something is not a > sufficient reason to respect that belief. > >>> It's been tested each time anyone dies. And, from the few reports we >>> have from those who died and came back to life, the test failed every >>> time. > >> I've seen "first hand reports" on near death experiences > > A NDE isn't death, it's just random neuron firing due to anoxia. You > may not give science credit for being able to determine whether > there's a god, but give it credit for being able to investigate > scientific things. Neurobiology isn't rocket science, it's just brain > surgery. > >> So if you have a >> site of more scientifically controlled NDE's, I'd really like a reference > > I'm not talking about NDEs, I'm talking about deaths - clinical > deaths. You won't find reports on web sites (and a scientifically > controlled death is called murder), but you'll find reports here on > alt.atheism. Michael Gray can tell you, I can tell you and others can > tell you. > Then which reports are you referring to where "people have died and come back to life." I've always referred those as "near death experiences." Whacko sites (quick google reveals this: http://www.near-death.com/faq.html) also corroborate that idea. I suppose the death you're talking about is the "they die and don't come back to life..." in which case, how did you even get a "few reports" that show the test failed. I suppose, there's Jesus and Lazarus (and those tests passed if you accept the test reports)... However, the recent NDE's that are documented (and I use that term loosely) seem to point to "consciousness existing after death." I too am skeptical of this--and I also believe that there is a high likelihood that those experiences are just random neurons firing. Really wish we could "murder" someone ala the movie "Flatliners" whilst the subject was in an MRI. >>>> You seriously aren't ridiculing >>>> all these people for making a personal choice that has absolutely no impact >>>> on you, are you? > >>> You seriously wouldn't ridicule a supposedly sane adult for still >>> believing in Santa Claus, would you? > >> As long as that person's belief in Santa Claus doesn't affect me at all (or >> rather, affects me detrimentally--I wouldn't mind getting a Ferrari from a >> guy because he believes in Santa Claus), then no, I wouldn't ridicule or >> judge him. It's when he crosses that line. I already have my beliefs and I >> am adult enough to test them rationally myself, I don't need someone who's >> already fixated that they know The Answer to try to bash it into my head >> (that goes for theists and atheists alike!). > > So if the Santa Clausist wanted laws passed that were detrimental to > you, based solely on his belief in Santa, you'd try to stop him from > getting them passed? > > That's what atheists are trying to do. As opposed because someone wanted to pass a law because it makes it more convenient for them (though it might inconvenience others)? People want laws for a variety of reasons--and laws written by the religious (of which, if you believe the historical documents, the Constitution is mostly an example of) are just as acceptable to me as those written by atheists; people always want something--and often what they want is contrary to what I want. Look at the "Gay Marriage" proposals. Look, I don't have a problem with gay couples (or ANY couples) getting the same benefits as married couples--but the homosexual community wants to make it a CONSTITUIONAL RIGHT; a foundation law of the country. I don't like it because I think it's WRONG (call it homophobia, if you want, but I just would rather not see my children grow up as homosexuals--along the same lines as I don't want them to grow up being smokers). The point is that their agenda is anti-Christian... And it's still, IMO, detestable. To give balance, I also believe Bush's proposal to make a Constitutional amendment that says "Marriage is between a man and a woman" is equally ludicrous... It steps on the rights of people to choose how they live (even if they aren't hurting anybody)--a definite (IMO) non-Constitutional idea. These two examples validate my point: regardless of a person's "personal beliefs" people tend to want to make laws that benefit their group even if it may hurt others. Atheists here are just as guilty as Christians. Quote
Guest Jim07D6 Posted December 15, 2006 Posted December 15, 2006 Someone <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> said: > > > >On 12/14/06 3:16 PM, in article ahm3o2pnbg9d4r3g9beomk5ak8rmsg9m3t@4ax.com, >"Jim07D6" <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote: > >> Someone <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> said: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 12/14/06 11:09 AM, in article as63o2t9f3mjr8c805guplv87pqv9o2fl4@4ax.com, >>> "Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: >> <...> >>>> >>>> How can something more complex than the universe (God) be simpler than >>>> the universe? >>>> >>> >>> "God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and He created everything" is an >>> extremely simple postulate. >> >> So it "This car can go from 0 to 60 in 3 seconds" but doing that is >> more complex. >> >>> It answers every question regarding the >>> anomalies we perceive--if you're willing to buy off on that postulate. >> >> It is not an answer. It is a response. >> > >Actually, it is a "postulate." And see how it goes: Q. "I noticed that >there are these 500 million year old dinosaur bones" A. "God put them >there." or A. "Yeah, God made dinosaurs too." > >Or Q. "I noticed that there is this level electromagnetic radiation >everywhere I point my radio telescope." A. "Yup, God put that there." > >I said is was simple, I didn't say necessarily that it was scientifically >rational. I see your point but I don't think it is simple, if being simple simplifies. > > >... SNIP ... >> <...> >>> I don't suggest researching any of them (since, as pointed out, testing the >>> supernatural is an exercise in futility). I do concede that there is a >>> possibility that God exists (or even 10^37 gods exist)... >> >> What is this possibility other than an admission of ignorance to the >> contrary --, an argument ad ignoriantiam? >> > >No, in my circle of colleagues it's called "keeping an open mind." I try to >not discard an idea until there is proof to the contrary. The concept of >"God" being untestable (and in many respects, ahem, circular) defies >disproving Him... Hence, I still concede that He may exist. Just like, btw, >how I acknowledge that the next period I type will coincide with a massive >supernova of the sun. Well, I was wrong there, wasn't I? You are falling for an ad ignorantiam argument: "God is not disproved, therefore, God is possible and cannot be discounted." -- Jim07D6 Quote
Guest Someone Posted December 15, 2006 Posted December 15, 2006 On 12/14/06 5:28 PM, in article r8u3o2lh3ppvhctj2vhljabqv1tli3kodu@4ax.com, "Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 15:51:08 -0800, Someone > <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> wrote: > >> It's been a long time since taking Geometry where we had to learn how to do >> proofs... But the quoted post is true: a postulate is a statement that is >> assumed to be true. > > By people qualified to decide whether it's true or not. "Parallel > line segments don't meet no matter how far extended" isn't assumed to > be true by people who know nothing about geometry. > > "Gods exist" isn't accepted as true by those qualified to decide > whether it's true or not. The opinions of those not qualified don't > matter. It is accepted by true by Christians--and they are imminently qualified to decide for themselves whether (to them) it is true or not. This is because, among other things, it is -their- death they are thinking about--a uniquely personal experience that justifies them the right to make a personal choice regarding what they believe happens after the lights go out that last time. Along the same lines, you are not qualified to decide for them that the existence of God is not true. But, in my opinion, you are perfectly free to believe (for yourself) that there is no Supreme Being and Christians have no right to try to bash it into your brain what they "know" is true. Quote
Guest Samuel W. Heywood Posted December 15, 2006 Posted December 15, 2006 On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote: > On 14 Dec 2006 10:32:58 -0800, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> > wrote: > >>> Under the rules of logic, one is not allowed to question whether >>> a postulate is true because, by definition, a postulate is accepted >>> as true without proof. >> >> That is the lamest attempt at an argument I've seen in a long time. It is not an attempt at an argument. It is a statement of a rule of logic and it is the definition of a postulate. > It's the equivalent of "I claim X, and I claim that claims can't be > questioned because, by my claim, that's true. So you have to accept > X". That is correct because that is the same as saying X is a postulate. One must accept X in order to believe as true a conclusion arrived at in an argument using X as one of its premises. > I guess the formal fallacy is "assuming the conclusion that assuming a > conclusion is valid", or something equally recursive. If X is a postulate used in an argument X cannot be the conclusion. You do not need to prove X because X is a postulate, which by definition is accepted as true. Your postulate X may be used either as a major or minor premise in your argument used to arrive at a conclusion. The logic of your argument may be valid even if your postulate X is not accepted as true by anyone except you. The beauty of logic is that you can use it to convince yourself of anything you want to believe. Sam Heywood -- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62 Quote
Guest Someone Posted December 15, 2006 Posted December 15, 2006 On 12/14/06 6:03 PM, in article gf04o29sh8d6kskmhsc8art2suba65p2uj@4ax.com, "Jim07D6" <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote: .. .. <<SNIP>> .. >> >> No, in my circle of colleagues it's called "keeping an open mind." I try to >> not discard an idea until there is proof to the contrary. The concept of >> "God" being untestable (and in many respects, ahem, circular) defies >> disproving Him... Hence, I still concede that He may exist. Just like, btw, >> how I acknowledge that the next period I type will coincide with a massive >> supernova of the sun. Well, I was wrong there, wasn't I? > > You are falling for an ad ignorantiam argument: "God is not disproved, > therefore, God is possible and cannot be discounted." > > -- Jim07D6 I think it's only deceptively ad ignorantium--I am not drawing any conclusions about God; if you want to state the argument, it should go as "God is not disproved, therefore, the idea of a God is possible and should not be discounted." I'm not saying that God exists or does not exist (that would be a conclusion), the statement is simply saying that the idea should still be open barring any proof (either way). Ad ignorantium arguments would actually be: "God is not proven, therefore God does not exist" or "God is not disproved, therefore God exists" both of which I've read (in some form or another) in these groups. Quote
Guest Samuel W. Heywood Posted December 15, 2006 Posted December 15, 2006 On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Neil Kelsey wrote: > > Someone wrote: >> It's been a long time since taking Geometry where we had to learn how to do >> proofs... But the quoted post is true: a postulate is a statement that is >> assumed to be true. > > That's true, that's what a postulate is. But "God created the universe" > is not a postulate just because Samuel J Heywood says it is. You're not > going to get me to assume that that statement is true. It's a > hypothesis. It is not a hypothesis because the statement cannot be subjected to objective scientific testing. Anyone may make any kind of basic assumption and say that it is a postulate, and saying that it is one makes it one, even if nobody other than the person making the basic assumption accepts it as true. Sam Heywood -- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62 Quote
Guest Neil Kelsey Posted December 15, 2006 Posted December 15, 2006 Samuel W. Heywood wrote: > On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Neil Kelsey wrote: > > > > > Someone wrote: > >> It's been a long time since taking Geometry where we had to learn how to do > >> proofs... But the quoted post is true: a postulate is a statement that is > >> assumed to be true. > > > > That's true, that's what a postulate is. But "God created the universe" > > is not a postulate just because Samuel J Heywood says it is. You're not > > going to get me to assume that that statement is true. It's a > > hypothesis. > > It is not a hypothesis because the statement cannot be subjected > to objective scientific testing. Disagree. God is a testable hypothesis because existence is testable. The only problem with your proposition is that you fail to provide any evidence for it's existence. Which makes your claim that god exists the equivalent to my claim that the Invisible Pink Unicorn (PBUH) exists. All you have done is provided an untestable hypothesis. I can prove it's a hypothesis by not accepting it as a postulate. It may be a postulate within the framework of Christianity, but it ain't no postulate outside of it. > Anyone may make any kind of basic assumption and say that it is a > postulate, and saying that it is one makes it one, even if nobody > other than the person making the basic assumption accepts it as > true. Well it isn't really a good argument that God exists then, is it? Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted December 15, 2006 Posted December 15, 2006 On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 17:30:21 -0800, Someone <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> wrote: > > >On 12/14/06 5:23 PM, in article v2u3o2lvlmp9errmcltursd5gmagv80lk3@4ax.com, >"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > >> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 16:07:29 -0800, Someone >> <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> wrote: >> >>> No, in my circle of colleagues it's called "keeping an open mind." I try to >>> not discard an idea until there is proof to the contrary. >> >> That's called "keeping your mind so open that your brains fall out". >> There's no evidence that Leprechauns, kobolds, the entire Greek and >> Roman pantheons and Martian civilization don't exist, but those are >> all ideas. So are at least a few million other things that rational >> people don't waste time on. >And really, that's fine with me if you want to believe that. Id I want to believe that sane people aren't researching the truth of Leprechauns? > As for me, as >far as I know, my brains are still intact where they ought to be. Where they ought be, maybe. Functional? No. -- rukbat at optonline dot net "So much blood has been shed by the Church because of an omission from the Gospel: "Ye shall be indifferent as to what your neighbor's religion is." Not merely tolerant of it, but indifferent to it. Divinity is claimed for many religions; but no religion is great enough or divine enough to add that new law to its code." - Mark Twain, a Biography (random sig, produced by SigChanger) Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted December 15, 2006 Posted December 15, 2006 On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 18:01:17 -0800, Someone <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> wrote: >On 12/14/06 5:18 PM, in article 66t3o299nmgee78689401mlcmda4fl7ve8@4ax.com, >"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: >> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 14:21:32 -0800, Someone >> <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> wrote: >>> So if you have a >>> site of more scientifically controlled NDE's, I'd really like a reference >> I'm not talking about NDEs, I'm talking about deaths - clinical >> deaths. You won't find reports on web sites (and a scientifically >> controlled death is called murder), but you'll find reports here on >> alt.atheism. Michael Gray can tell you, I can tell you and others can >> tell you. >Then which reports are you referring to where "people have died and come >back to life." Mine, Michael's ... > I've always referred those as "near death experiences." A NDE is someone suffering from short term anoxia. Death is being dead - flat ekg, flat eeg. >Whacko sites (quick google reveals this: http://www.near-death.com/faq.html) >also corroborate that idea. I suppose the death you're talking about is the >"they die and don't come back to life..." in which case, how did you even >get a "few reports" that show the test failed. I suppose, there's Jesus and >Lazarus (and those tests passed if you accept the test reports)... And me and Michael and a few others. >However, the recent NDE's that are documented Again, I'm not talking about NDEs. > (and I use that term loosely) >seem to point to "consciousness existing after death." I too am skeptical >of this--and I also believe that there is a high likelihood that those >experiences are just random neurons firing. Really wish we could "murder" >someone ala the movie "Flatliners" whilst the subject was in an MRI. An MRI wouldn't show much. >> So if the Santa Clausist wanted laws passed that were detrimental to >> you, based solely on his belief in Santa, you'd try to stop him from >> getting them passed? >> >> That's what atheists are trying to do. > >As opposed because someone wanted to pass a law because it makes it more >convenient for them (though it might inconvenience others)? As opposed , in the US, to not passing laws about religion, since that's illegal. > People want >laws for a variety of reasons--and laws written by the religious (of which, >if you believe the historical documents, the Constitution is mostly an >example of) A religious document without a single reference to religion of any kind, written and ratified by people who were mostly Deists. >Look at the "Gay Marriage" proposals. Look, I don't have a problem with gay >couples (or ANY couples) getting the same benefits as married couples--but >the homosexual community wants to make it a CONSTITUIONAL RIGHT; a >foundation law of the country. They want to make EQUALITY a foundation of the country? HOW DARE THEY! Next thing, we'll have to give equality to Jews and colored people! This is a WHITE, PROTESTANT SEXUALLY STRAIGHT country! Right? > I don't like it because I think it's WRONG >(call it homophobia, if you want, but I just would rather not see my >children grow up as homosexuals How is granting homosexuals the right to marry going to turn your children into homosexuals? That's as stupid as saying that gibing blacks the right to marry will turn your children into African-Americans. >The point is that their agenda is anti-Christian. The law MUST BE religion neutral. It can't do something (or not do something) merely because one religion or another thinks it's against their god's will. >And it's still, IMO, detestable. So don't marry a man. >To give balance, I also believe Bush's proposal to make a Constitutional >amendment that says "Marriage is between a man and a woman" is equally >ludicrous... It steps on the rights of people to choose how they live (even >if they aren't hurting anybody)--a definite (IMO) non-Constitutional idea. >These two examples validate my point: regardless of a person's "personal >beliefs" people tend to want to make laws that benefit their group even if >it may hurt others. Atheists here are just as guilty as Christians. Atheism doesn't motivate people to do things any more than not collecting stamps or not being birds motivates people to do things. -- rukbat at optonline dot net I cannot conceive of a god who rewards and punishes his creatures or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives its physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egotism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eter- nity of life and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the exist- ing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature. - Albert Einstein, as quoted in _Billions and Billions_, Carl Sagan. (random sig, produced by SigChanger) Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted December 15, 2006 Posted December 15, 2006 On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 18:10:22 -0800, Someone <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> wrote: >On 12/14/06 5:28 PM, in article r8u3o2lh3ppvhctj2vhljabqv1tli3kodu@4ax.com, >"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > >> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 15:51:08 -0800, Someone >> <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> wrote: >> >>> It's been a long time since taking Geometry where we had to learn how to do >>> proofs... But the quoted post is true: a postulate is a statement that is >>> assumed to be true. >> >> By people qualified to decide whether it's true or not. "Parallel >> line segments don't meet no matter how far extended" isn't assumed to >> be true by people who know nothing about geometry. >> >> "Gods exist" isn't accepted as true by those qualified to decide >> whether it's true or not. The opinions of those not qualified don't >> matter. > >It is accepted by true by Christians--and they are imminently qualified to >decide for themselves whether (to them) it is true or not. And, as long as they keep it to themselves, no one else cares. >Along the same lines, you are not qualified to decide for them that the >existence of God is not true. Truth isn't a personal choice. A thing that's true is true even if everyone believes that it's false. Even if there's no one capable of belief. The world was round long before there was anything intelligent enough to understand "round". Reality isn't based on what people believe. -- rukbat at optonline dot net "Does it ever amaze anyone else how little faith some heterosexuals have in heterosexuality? It's supposed to be this god-given human instinct that only the warped and perverted ever stray from; but, it seems, if we once tell our straight children a message even as mild as "some people are gay, and that's all right," that'll be enough to send lil' Suzy into the arms of women forever. It's a wonder the race has survived this long, really..." - ENNEAD@deimos.ucs.umass.edu Charles M Seaton (21 Dec 1994) (random sig, produced by SigChanger) Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted December 15, 2006 Posted December 15, 2006 On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 21:16:54 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote: >On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote: > >> On 14 Dec 2006 10:32:58 -0800, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>>> Under the rules of logic, one is not allowed to question whether >>>> a postulate is true because, by definition, a postulate is accepted >>>> as true without proof. >>> >>> That is the lamest attempt at an argument I've seen in a long time. > >It is not an attempt at an argument. It is a statement of a >rule of logic No it's not. Logic isn't anything you declare to be logic. > and it is the definition of a postulate. A postulate is something that those qualified to judge consider to be true. Notice the "those qualified to judge" part - if your posts are any example of what you call thinking, you aren't included in that group. >> It's the equivalent of "I claim X, and I claim that claims can't be >> questioned because, by my claim, that's true. So you have to accept >> X". >That is correct No, child, I was pointing out how ridiculous your claim is. >One must accept X in order to believe as true a conclusion arrived >at in an argument using X as one of its premises. Only id X is true. One can't make X true by assertion, which is what you're doing. >> I guess the formal fallacy is "assuming the conclusion that assuming a >> conclusion is valid", or something equally recursive. >If X is a postulate IF . An assertion doesn't become a postulate just because you claim it is. >You do not need to prove X because X is a postulate, which by >definition is accepted as true. IF it's a postulate. Your assertion isn't one. >The beauty of logic is that you can use it to convince yourself of >anything you want to believe. If you're stupid enough to believe that. Evidently you are. -- rukbat at optonline dot net "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings." -A. Einstein (1929 -- Einstein Archive 33-272) (random sig, produced by SigChanger) Quote
Guest Someone Posted December 15, 2006 Posted December 15, 2006 On 12/14/06 8:10 PM, in article 4g74o2l0ffg8nucjo928f09d9629i25jmr@4ax.com, "Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 18:01:17 -0800, Someone > <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> wrote: .. .. << SNIP >> .. .. >> As opposed because someone wanted to pass a law because it makes it more >> convenient for them (though it might inconvenience others)? > > As opposed , in the US, to not passing laws about religion, since > that's illegal. > >> People want >> laws for a variety of reasons--and laws written by the religious (of which, >> if you believe the historical documents, the Constitution is mostly an >> example of) > > A religious document without a single reference to religion of any > kind, written and ratified by people who were mostly Deists. > I didn't say the Constitution was a religious document--just that it was written by the religious. Yes, regarding the non-theological wording of the Constitution, religious people can be objective too. Regarding deism: What is the basis of Deism? Reason and nature. We see the design found throughout the known universe and this realization brings us to a sound belief in a Designer or God. Is Deism a form of atheism? No. Atheism teaches that there is no God. Deism teaches there is a God. Deism rejects the "revelations" of the "revealed" religions but does not reject God. source: http://www.deism.com/deism_defined.htm So careful, your bias is starting to show. >> Look at the "Gay Marriage" proposals. Look, I don't have a problem with gay >> couples (or ANY couples) getting the same benefits as married couples--but >> the homosexual community wants to make it a CONSTITUIONAL RIGHT; a >> foundation law of the country. > > They want to make EQUALITY a foundation of the country? HOW DARE > THEY! Next thing, we'll have to give equality to Jews and colored > people! This is a WHITE, PROTESTANT SEXUALLY STRAIGHT country! Right? > >> I don't like it because I think it's WRONG >> (call it homophobia, if you want, but I just would rather not see my >> children grow up as homosexuals > > How is granting homosexuals the right to marry going to turn your > children into homosexuals? That's as stupid as saying that gibing > blacks the right to marry will turn your children into > African-Americans. > >> The point is that their agenda is anti-Christian. > > The law MUST BE religion neutral. It can't do something (or not do > something) merely because one religion or another thinks it's against > their god's will. > >> And it's still, IMO, detestable. > > So don't marry a man. > -I- think it's detestable. You apparently don't. Believe it or not, I am allowed to have this belief of the "wrongness" of homosexuality (regardless of whether or not it is religion-based)--and to vocalize that I don't want the Law of the Land to advocate it. You are perfectly free to disagree with me. As to "equality"--that law would not be equal. A law that would be equal would be one that allows -any- couple to share the benefits of a civil union: a brother and a widowed sister, so that together they may care for the sister's children; or two very close friends who together want to see their estates pass on to each other's heirs and be able to care for each other when ill. But, no, some people want SEXUAL ORIENTATION as part of the determination of what should be just and fair. What the homosexual community is proposing is an agenda to justify certain groups' lifestyles. >> To give balance, I also believe Bush's proposal to make a Constitutional >> amendment that says "Marriage is between a man and a woman" is equally >> ludicrous... It steps on the rights of people to choose how they live (even >> if they aren't hurting anybody)--a definite (IMO) non-Constitutional idea. >> These two examples validate my point: regardless of a person's "personal >> beliefs" people tend to want to make laws that benefit their group even if >> it may hurt others. Atheists here are just as guilty as Christians. > > Atheism doesn't motivate people to do things any more than not > collecting stamps or not being birds motivates people to do things. So what is your moral compass? Is it because something just "feels right?" Or is it based on following the laws and mores dictated by society? Or perhaps you do what you think is best for you or what you think is best for society (as if you or anyone else was in a position to speak for everyone)? Or maybe you just flip a coin every morning to decide whether to take a shower or go outside and murder the mailman? At least religious nuts have a written doctrine--and a belief that they have a "higher power" that they need to answer to. Consider: would you back a law that would allow free expression in all public places -- even if that expression is a cross, or a menorah imprinted with the 10 commandments, or a stile with the words Allahu Akbar min kuli shay written on it? I don't know what you would do--but I know atheists who would fight tooth and nail to ensure no religious icons are ever placed in public places and who would try to make that desire scribed into law... As if the only allowable "free expression" are those devoid of a God. Atheism does sometimes motivate people to do things. Quote
Guest Geoffrey Lin Posted December 15, 2006 Posted December 15, 2006 I am bisexual, the homosexual community would say. I like women, but I also am interested in men (of which I don't tend to disassociate to people because it would ruin my reputation as a lawyer). Anyway, since it is the Internet and my idntity is hidden I will continue. Let's call me Bob, for example. So I Bob, in University, I studied a subject called cutomology which is the study of humans and reasoning. (This was apart of my Economics degree - it was indeed an elective) Anyway, I believe that it should be a constitutional right, in the United States (and even the world), that homosexuals should have similar rights to heterosexuals. God said "love thy neighbor", and it's not about Biblical values or anything, but it's about loving thy neighbor - and letting people do whatever they wish to - whatever the consequence. That is what I, Bob, believe. Someone wrote: > On 12/14/06 5:18 PM, in article 66t3o299nmgee78689401mlcmda4fl7ve8@4ax.com, > "Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > > > On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 14:21:32 -0800, Someone > > <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> wrote: > > > >> On 12/14/06 11:09 AM, in article as63o2t9f3mjr8c805guplv87pqv9o2fl4@4ax.com, > >> "Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > >>> On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 21:33:00 -0800, Someone > >>> <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> wrote: > > > >>>> He could be right, of course... But, in my opinion, so could those > >>>> Creationists > >>>> (and their model is so much simpler!) > > > >>> How can something more complex than the universe (God) be simpler than > >>> the universe? > > > >> "God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and He created everything" is an > >> extremely simple postulate. > > > > "The universe is too complex to not be created" complicates it beyond > > understandability, though. A complex universe is simpler than the > > more complex creator of that universe. > > > >> I don't suggest researching any of them (since, as pointed out, testing the > >> supernatural is an exercise in futility). I do concede that there is a > >> possibility that God exists (or even 10^37 gods exist)... Hence I refuse to > >> bicker with both atheists and deists about it--and urge everyone just to > >> respect each others beliefs. > > > > Beliefs don't automatically deserve respect - some ideas deserve > > utmost respect, some deserve none and some deserve nothing but > > contempt. But the fact that someone believes something is not a > > sufficient reason to respect that belief. > > > >>> It's been tested each time anyone dies. And, from the few reports we > >>> have from those who died and came back to life, the test failed every > >>> time. > > > >> I've seen "first hand reports" on near death experiences > > > > A NDE isn't death, it's just random neuron firing due to anoxia. You > > may not give science credit for being able to determine whether > > there's a god, but give it credit for being able to investigate > > scientific things. Neurobiology isn't rocket science, it's just brain > > surgery. > > > >> So if you have a > >> site of more scientifically controlled NDE's, I'd really like a reference > > > > I'm not talking about NDEs, I'm talking about deaths - clinical > > deaths. You won't find reports on web sites (and a scientifically > > controlled death is called murder), but you'll find reports here on > > alt.atheism. Michael Gray can tell you, I can tell you and others can > > tell you. > > > > Then which reports are you referring to where "people have died and come > back to life." I've always referred those as "near death experiences." > Whacko sites (quick google reveals this: http://www.near-death.com/faq.html) > also corroborate that idea. I suppose the death you're talking about is the > "they die and don't come back to life..." in which case, how did you even > get a "few reports" that show the test failed. I suppose, there's Jesus and > Lazarus (and those tests passed if you accept the test reports)... > > However, the recent NDE's that are documented (and I use that term loosely) > seem to point to "consciousness existing after death." I too am skeptical > of this--and I also believe that there is a high likelihood that those > experiences are just random neurons firing. Really wish we could "murder" > someone ala the movie "Flatliners" whilst the subject was in an MRI. > > > >>>> You seriously aren't ridiculing > >>>> all these people for making a personal choice that has absolutely no impact > >>>> on you, are you? > > > >>> You seriously wouldn't ridicule a supposedly sane adult for still > >>> believing in Santa Claus, would you? > > > >> As long as that person's belief in Santa Claus doesn't affect me at all (or > >> rather, affects me detrimentally--I wouldn't mind getting a Ferrari from a > >> guy because he believes in Santa Claus), then no, I wouldn't ridicule or > >> judge him. It's when he crosses that line. I already have my beliefs and I > >> am adult enough to test them rationally myself, I don't need someone who's > >> already fixated that they know The Answer to try to bash it into my head > >> (that goes for theists and atheists alike!). > > > > So if the Santa Clausist wanted laws passed that were detrimental to > > you, based solely on his belief in Santa, you'd try to stop him from > > getting them passed? > > > > That's what atheists are trying to do. > > As opposed because someone wanted to pass a law because it makes it more > convenient for them (though it might inconvenience others)? People want > laws for a variety of reasons--and laws written by the religious (of which, > if you believe the historical documents, the Constitution is mostly an > example of) are just as acceptable to me as those written by atheists; > people always want something--and often what they want is contrary to what I > want. > > Look at the "Gay Marriage" proposals. Look, I don't have a problem with gay > couples (or ANY couples) getting the same benefits as married couples--but > the homosexual community wants to make it a CONSTITUIONAL RIGHT; a > foundation law of the country. I don't like it because I think it's WRONG > (call it homophobia, if you want, but I just would rather not see my > children grow up as homosexuals--along the same lines as I don't want them > to grow up being smokers). The point is that their agenda is > anti-Christian... And it's still, IMO, detestable. > > To give balance, I also believe Bush's proposal to make a Constitutional > amendment that says "Marriage is between a man and a woman" is equally > ludicrous... It steps on the rights of people to choose how they live (even > if they aren't hurting anybody)--a definite (IMO) non-Constitutional idea. > These two examples validate my point: regardless of a person's "personal > beliefs" people tend to want to make laws that benefit their group even if > it may hurt others. Atheists here are just as guilty as Christians. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.