Does it matter if people believe in Creationism?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobinHood3000

It may be non-denominational, but it's still prayer. The problem with a major argument for keeping the "Under God" in that Pledge of Allegiance, for example, is that even when you try to include everybody that believes in any god, there's still people that get left out. C'est la vie.

---

In Canada-the western part at least, I cannot speak for the east, the word God is mentioned in the national anthem obviously because it was a very religious country when put together.
But absolutely no prayers are allowed in parliament of any sector of the government nor in schools nor any public assemblies excepting naturally Easter morning service in the outdoors.
I have no problem with that. I found really when I was a child and it was still done that it was a forced thing, a rude thing and it made me ashamed because Christ Jesus was gentle to all, eating with the tax collectors and prositutes etc.He of course taught them not to walk this way for their well being,but it in no way affected His deep love for them. So I think it needs to be in the home and in the heart. You cannot legislate loving God, that is why under the law which was but a shadow to the coming of Christ God showed how flawed such a thing was even though we convenated with Him. Like in a marriage He wants our heart not our being conscripted. The same about believing anything at all. that is why I love the scripture where God says" come let us REASON together." That is fair I think. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

It evolves over time.

---

Ah-ah, so you do believe in evolution! :D

I must own up, Virgil. I have never taken a class in logic. I refused to enter a building whose existence I considered nothing more than a mental construct.
I got an 'A'. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Have people not taken any classes in logic? Perhaps this focus on post modern crap squeezes out important stuff like rhetoric and logic?

---

Quote:

---

Rhetoric: Language designed to have a persuasive or impressive affect on it's audience, but which is often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content.

---

And that's important stuff? Sounds like using language as control to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Because there is no national religion, it does not follow that there is no belief in God. There is non-denominational prayer at the beginning of every session of congress and other functions.

---

And does this lack of denominationality mean that muslims, hindus, sikhs, buddhists, jains, pagans, followers of native American beliefs, atheists and anyone else that isn't mainstream christian gets fairly represented?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Actually Bono from U2 was just recently here at a prayer function with the president.

---

(Warning. The next passage contains sarcasm. Those of a nervopus disposition should skip it.)
Bono, you say? I take it all back. If Bono agrees, it must be true. :nod:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

No national religion means that neither Roman Catholicism or Anglicanism or Baptism or whatever is an official religion of the country. That's all.

---

So you are saying that generic christianity is? Sounds like it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

There is a line drawn between government function and religion; where that line is drawn is an evolving issue of debate and discussion. It evolves over time.

---

Somebody beat me to it on the 'evolves over time' comment. But I felt it needed emphasising.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xamonas Chegwe

And does this lack of denominationality mean that muslims, hindus, sikhs, buddhists, jains, pagans, followers of native American beliefs, atheists and anyone else that isn't mainstream christian gets fairly represented?




So you are saying that generic christianity is? Sounds like it.

---

I couldn't fairly say, XC, honesty being the best policy here. I do know that Wicca and Voodoo are recognized religions in the USA, and that we have our share of everyone you mention, plus more. There is much argument against the wording on our money, the pledge, and the prayers in the Senate/House, etc. Are we Godless, you asked? No. But I would be hard pressed to tell you why sometimes when I see the fighting among churches and religions...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xamonas Chegwe

And that's important stuff? Sounds like using language as control to me.

---

Speaking of which, omission is a form of control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Merriam Webster's

1 : the art of speaking or writing effectively: as a : the study of principles and rules of composition formulated by critics of ancient times b : the study of writing or speaking as a means of communication or persuasion
2 a : skill in the effective use of speech b : a type or mode of language or speech; also : insincere or grandiloquent language
3 : verbal communication : DISCOURSE

---

(1) I broke a personal rule here on this thread, never to debate politics or religion. I wound up to my despair doing both. The reason that drew me in was that I saw a gross flaw in Unnamable's logic( ie, belief in absudites lead to atrocities). I will complete my points here and never discuss this again.

(2) First I would never poke my nose in some other countires politics or traditions. I would never ciriticize how other nations resolve their conflicts, especially between religion and government. I don't think it's appropriate. There are nations in Europe that still bow down to Kings and still have state sponsered religion. With Europe's history of religious strife, I don't think anyone there ought to be lecturing the United States.

(3) I said there was a line that evolves over where religion and government meet. We are a democracy, the first and oldest deomcracy on the face of this earth. 90% or thereabouts in America believe in some form higher diety. That line, drawn where it is, reflects that democracy. Some day we may be an atheistic nation. Then that line will reflect it so. People from all over the world still come to the United States for religious freedom. My wife is Jewish. Her family was persecuted in Europe. They are the proudest Americans I know, and they worship this land. Never do they feel, despite the fact that they are a very small minorty, do they feel that they are being slighted.

(4)

Quote:

---

And does this lack of denominationality mean that muslims, hindus, sikhs, buddhists, jains, pagans, followers of native American beliefs, atheists and anyone else that isn't mainstream christian gets fairly represented

---

In my observations of congressional daily prayer invocations, I have seen rabbis, protestant ministers, Catholic Priests, Greek Orthodox priests, muslim Imams, and perhaps sikhs (although I'm not sure I can tell). I don't see why there would be a reason for the other religions not to participate. We are a respectful and pluralistic society.

(5) The non-denominational prayers that I have heard and actually been in the audience for go something like this: Let us pray in the traditions that you have been brought up in and believe; almighty God (or I've even heard Universal Creator) we thank you for the blessings you have bestowed upon us and pray for your wisdom in guidence in the decsions that lay before us.

(6) I don't feel I have to rationalize my country's traditions to any outsider. There are more immagrants trying to come to our country than we can accomodate. My parents and I (as a three year old) were immigrants to my country. This country has been very good to me. I am proud of it beyond anyone's comprehension. If you don't like it, then don't live here. We won't mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

(1) The reason that drew me in was that I saw a gross flaw in Unnamable's logic( ie, belief in absudites lead to atrocities).

---

It was HIS fault!!! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

I will complete my points here and never discuss this again.

---

After such a foul slur on my powers of reasoning, I will make no such promise. ;) Voltaire’s comment is no more intended as a piece of strict logic than is any other aphorism. Virgil, given your current attack of apoplectic nationalism, you might like this:

“No people can be great who have ceased to be virtuous.”
Dr. Johnson An Introduction to the Political State of Great Britain.

He was referring here to the behaviour of British colonists in America. If we examine this logically, it is flawed, perhaps even grossly flawed. What does he mean by ‘great’? What does he mean by ‘virtuous’? Is Johnson stating that there is a direct and logical correlation between greatness and virtue? There is no universal law that insists this must be so; “it just doesn't follow” to quote Virgil. In which case, does the great Dr. Johnson also require rewriting? This kind of deconstruction is fine by me but if you attack it on the point of pure logic, then you should be consistent and attack every statement of its nature.

I believe that Voltaire was pointing out that the gullibility of the many enables the evil of the few to thrive and set the agenda for barbarism.

A lot of the ideas here are worth considering in the light of Stanley Milgram’s Experiment:
http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=15073

“In order that all men may be taught to speak truth, it is necessary that all likewise should learn to hear it.”
Dr. Johnson ( or The Great Flawed Logician as he was known in his vaudeville days)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

With Europe's history of religious strife, I don't think anyone there ought to be lecturing the United States.

We are a democracy, the first and oldest deomcracy on the face of this earth. 90% or thereabouts in America believe in some form higher diety. That line, drawn where it is, reflects that democracy. Some day we may be an atheistic nation. Then that line will reflect it so. People from all over the world still come to the United States for religious freedom. My wife is Jewish. Her family was persecuted in Europe. They are the proudest Americans I know, and they worship this land. Never do they feel, despite the fact that they are a very small minorty, do they feel that they are being slighted.

I don't feel I have to rationalize my country's traditions to any outsider. There are more immagrants trying to come to our country than we can accomodate. My parents and I (as a three year old) were immigrants to my country. This country has been very good to me. I am proud of it beyond anyone's comprehension. If you don't like it, then don't live here. We won't mind.

---

Blimey. Where does it come from? What is it in response to? Mysteries, mysteries.

The sense of America's absolute, unimpeachable rightness in the world, held by many Americans, seems linked to many of the atrocities it has committed around the world in the name of its national interest, which is often elided as if there's no contradiction at all, with the idea of spreading democracy.

The idea that any person, state or institution is above criticism is undemocratic, so it's a shame America keeps insisting on its absolute rightness on the grounds that it is democratic. You might even say, absurd.

This idea that America is the world's first democracy is debatable at best. The word is, after all, a coinage of the ancient Greeks. In 1900, the only country in the world that had universal suffrage was New Zealand.

Europe, at various points, has had problems with religious conflict, so all the citizens of its present day secular democracies are disqualified from criticizing America? Did you say you'd taken a course on logic, Virgil?

Perhaps you were simply trying to give us an object lesson in absurdity.

Meanwhile, in another part of the forum, I think I must be the reason you accuse Unnamable of defending racism in literature. As so often, this point was dealt with fairly exhaustively at the time. Whether you agree with the general conclusion (the text was not racist) or not (you obviously don't), it's pretty disingenuous of you to bring it up as if your view was accepted as fact.

Unnamable, since we're allowed to talk about the Nazis (hooray!), there's a passage from Adorno I like where he says that Nazi slogans like 'Blut und Bloden' (Blood and Soil) were widely seen as ridiculous even at the time by the German population. Adorno's view is that the Nazis used absurdity as an assertion of power - effectively saying, they didn't even have to try to make sense.

The creationism debate you begin with relates closely to that statement some Bu****e made recently about 'the reality based community' (seen as a bad thing). My memory of this is not good, but wasn't the condemnation of those of us naive enough to believe in empirical evidence being used to justify the Iraq war? The step from belief in the absurd to body counts does seem short. It seems to become something the would-be perpetrators can use to facilitate their cause, however cynically.

To go back to the Nazis, there's obviously a great deal of mysticism and occultism surrounding their rise and their objectives. The main point, as I see it, is that opening the door to any of this is to begin to shut down the kind of critical thinking, logic and empiricism that is needed in order to prevent atrocity.

I've read on with this debate, and I find some fundamental facts interesting.

There has been many claims as to the origins of the problems of mankind, problems which stem back to the earliest point of human history.
Humanity has been commiting atrocitties since the first murder and has been continuing down the line ever since.
We must not forget that such things as genocide, political murder, masscres, have all been part of the human make-up since its initial start in the universe.
Many of the causes of these problems would seem to be religious ferver caused by fanatical groups within a religion.
We must then remember that these religous fanatics only stand for a part of that religous makeup, and it would be wrong, and essentially ignorant for us to "Paint Everyone" with the same brush, as it were.
What often happens is that evil minded people, often doing as they do, see a religion as a weapon, or a way to increase their power and thus use it to their own ends.
Hence the reason that Christian history is marred with political scandal, murder, and outright attrocities like the spanish inquisition. And, is also the reason that the Moslems in recent times have marred their national image by being driven by religious fanaticism to declare Jihads, and use acts of terror against people.
So then all cause for religious strife would originate from leaders who are otherwise ignorant or use the church/mosque/temple/offices as a weapon against those hatred that they themselves foster then drive the masses to follow.
It is then essentially those fanatics in any system, whether it be Communism, Socialism, Theism, or Universalism, that are the cause of religious strife in the world, and thus the truly dangerous element of religion. Therefore it is up to those in the majority to will themselves against the much louder minority.

"Anything, will have people who use it properly, and those who abuse it."

The Crusades, or "taking up the cross" happened for them most part because the papist system believed that the Holy land should lie in the hands of Christians, and was a direct result of the previous wars that had enveloped Byzantium, and major parts of Spain and Sicily. It was a way for those religious leaders to make up for the Christian territory that had been lost, and also a chance for Europe to be united under a common enemy.
Better to have them fighting the Saracen and Moors than other fellow Christians, and at the same time they could increase their land holdings and power. This in turn served the Church two major purposes, since they were doing what they thought was a service to God, and at the same time keeping peace in the Christian land, and was thus both political and religous.

As for the origin of world problems? I know the answer, but I will leave that for you all to decide.

Of course this is totally off course of the original subject :goof: Oh well, maybe someone will start a Nazi religous forum :lol:

The topic of discussion in this thread is 'Does it matter if people believe in Creationism?' Please avoid turning it into country/people bashing session and, as always, no current politics!

Thank you!

I believe in creationism, I don't believe in the use of faith, or religion as a weapon. Save that for the politicians.

Patriotism is not a great deal more than an idealistic dream which often has little bearing on reality. You don't own your country it owns you, and you are completely free to do all that it commands, for democracy is merely a dictatorship by the majority, people cannot govern others until they are capable of governing themselves (Hegelian Philosophy on the state I believe)

But to the topic ;) Is creationism any more rediculous than the idea of everything came from nothing or that we evolved "Once upon a time in a land far far away"? The only thing that seems to be evolving is the theory of evolution itself, I cannot even keep up with the different amendments which have been placed to the evolution religion, and I don't mainly on account of it needing amendments in the first place.

Christianity has remained the same since the dawn of time and has never changed. Powerful words, but is nonetheless true, why? Because truth remains the same, it is the understanding of truth which alters.

There is a great deal of evidence to support Christianity and you you owe it to yourself to at least examine the evidence that stands to say that this is a matter of life and death and determine for yourself whether it is or not, if you look at it from the Adventist(now salvation is not restricted to a particular church but the best knowledge regarding it seems to be) perspective, which is my perspective, accompanied with an objective outlook you will become a Christian. Prove me wrong, I dare you, it will simply be heaven's gain if you try, for you will come to find you have eternal life if you but reach for it.

There's a great thread for this kind of stuff, Christian. Perhaps you've dropped in already. It's just called Evolution vs. Creation. The purpose of this thread you've just posted in is not to argue about whether creationism and Christianity are true or not. Still, just one point I can't let go by: Christianity has not existed since the dawn of time. It's commonly acknowledged among Christians and non-Christians to have existed for about 2,000 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blp

Christianity has not existed since the dawn of time. It's commonly acknowledged among Christians and non-Christians to have existed for about 2,000 years.

---

Quite correct. If you don't mind a Bible quote, BLP, I think it's in Acts, "They were first called 'Christians' at Antioch", a city I'm not even sure exists in modern times, certainly not the same as then. :nod:

Christ the Son of God before the world was, is and ever will be the same both in intention and character, this is the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Christian

Christ the Son of God before the world was, is and ever will be the same both in intention and character, this is the point.

---

That might be your point Christian but I asked the question because I don’t believe and think some beliefs are absurd. Creationism does strike me as one such belief but there are plenty of others. The one thing I have to distinguish me from an organism that acts purely on instinct is my rational faculty. It enables me to consider the meaning, purpose and value of my existence. I choose to do so without recourse to any supernatural being.

I believe that not only are some beliefs absurd, they also help prevent any real improvement in the lot of mankind by offering solutions that divert us from the real issues. If we believe Moses the Raven’s promise of ‘sugarcandy mountain’, then we are less likely to address the real causes of suffering, as well as less likely to embark on a course that offers hope of genuine improvement.

I think a lot of the fake respect that political correctness insists we accord to all beliefs has enabled nonsense to make dangerous inroads. The moral cowardice of those who are too intimidated by the threat of being labelled racist/sexist/narrow-minded to say what they believe is already having a destructive impact on independent thought. If you say anything about race other than that racism is evil, you are immediately suspect.

Most frightening to me is the fact that absurd beliefs are not only respected but also considered as deserving equal rights with all others. The idea of teaching creationism as a possible explanation is even more frightening.

What would people think if I started teaching astrology as a viable explanation for human existence? Some people believe in it just as strongly as others believe in God. To pretend that it’s anything more than nonsense gives it legitimacy it doesn’t deserve. If, having ‘found’ astrology people cease in their search for answers, the chances of us all finding them are diminished and the bigger and more popular the absurdity, the less likely is our capacity to avoid disaster.

It's a tough one, Unnamable. The whole thread is premised on something a lot of people just aren't going to buy into.

Have you come across Frances Wheen's book 'How Mumbo Jumbo conquered the world'? It's a bit of a mess in a way and he lumps post structuralism with a lot of more legitimate beefs, but overall it paints an interesting if frightening picture of the pervasive acceptance of nonsense, from Hilary Clinton's astrologer to half baked management theory and 'blue sky thinking' under Thatcher.

I recall a political comic I once saw that sums my position up rather nicely, I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blp

It's a tough one, Unnamable. The whole thread is premised on something a lot of people just aren't going to buy into.

---

HAL:
for wisdom cries out in the
streets, and no man regards it.
King Henry IV Part 1 Act 1. Scene II

I intended “to vex the world rather than divert it.” ;)

Don't know the Frances Wheen book. If I see it, I'll give it a go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobinHood3000

I recall a political comic I once saw that sums my position up rather nicely, I think.

---

Robin, mon ami, you know I believe in a Ceator. I also believe that church is where you should learn about the Bible, science class is where you learn about science, for I also believe in Evolution. Your political cartoon was priceless. Kind of puts things in perspective, doesn't it? :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unnamable

HAL:
for wisdom cries out in the
streets, and no man regards it.
King Henry IV Part 1 Act 1. Scene II

I intended “to vex the world rather than divert it.” ;)

---

Words to live by. :nod:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pendragon

Robin, mon ami, you know I believe in a Ceator. I also believe that church is where you should learn about the Bible, science class is where you learn about science, for I also believe in Evolution. Your political cartoon was priceless. Kind of puts things in perspective, doesn't it? :lol:

---

Indeed it does, amigo!

Wow 'boiled alive in chip fat'. Tasty. The next big thing in Burger King. It's always a delight to listen to the apostles of evolutionary theory pontificate about fossils and Lucys and missing links and the latest mumbo-jumboism of science which can neither save their mortal flesh nor satisfy their (almost invisible) immortal souls. I dig your crazy handles coves. By the way what Mr Voltaire really said was 'As long as people eat KFC, chickens will be roasted' A bad translation again. Responsible for several atrocities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by virgil

There are lots of scientists that believe in God, including I may add Albert Einstein. If Albert Einstein can believe in God, it is not an absurdity that adds to any cumulative dangerous effect.

---

Sorry, this was brought up very early in the thread, but nobody challenged it and I can't let it slip by. Alberta Einstien absolutely did not believe in God. 'God' (capitalized) means Yahweh. The Judeo-Christian fellow. To let Einstein speak for himself:

Quote:

---

The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events — provided, of course, that he takes the hypothesis of causality really seriously. He has no use for the religion of fear and equally little for social or moral religion. A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man's actions are determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God's eyes he cannot be responsible, any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motions it undergoes. Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death.

---

So no, Albert Einstein did not believe in God. He was a deist, at best. I do not post this as a sort of atheist apologetics piece, I am merely very very sick of hearing "well Einstein believe in God, so you should to", as if that was a valid argument, or even true. Needless to say, my patience has already been expired with this sort of silliness: http://snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp. *Sigh*. Oh well, moving on:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ennison

t's always a delight to listen to the apostles of evolutionary theory pontificate about fossils and Lucys and missing links and the latest mumbo-jumboism of science which can neither save their mortal flesh nor satisfy their (almost invisible) immortal souls.

---

See, this is why the rest of us are concerned about creationism. Thanks to the influence of intelligent design, belief in a theory backed up by absolute mounds of empirical evidence is now looked upon by large sectors of the public as some sort of religion, only without the repect that religion automatically recieves. This sort of thing is exactly why we need to be more educated about evolutionary theory, not less. If ennison (sorry to single you out but, in all fairness, you asked for it) knew a bit more about the theory, he would not be so quick to dismiss the Lucy fossil as 'mumbo-jumboism". The argument that both intelligent design and evolution are both simply a matter of belief, and therefore deserve equal class time, is harmfull to science and education in general. Not all beliefs are created equal, I'm sad to say. My theory that there is a small teapot in orbit around the (dwarf) planet pluto is not on equal footing with your theory that it isn't.

Ah 'tis her lack of knowlege of the theory that leads her to dismiss it as just a theory. Lucy was either human or not. Personally I believe she was every bit as human as you or I, maybe even a bit more. No 'missing link' has been found because... well ... it's missing. And what happened several million years ago is not subject to the proof of empirical investigations.

He made the seas;
the dry land too, it was formed by his hands.
Come let us bow down; bending the knee before the God who made us.

No; I don't think it odd that you think God made the universe. I'm puzzled by anyone
who could remotely think otherwise.
Frankly, it's so evident, I find it totally beyond logic, how anyone can think otherwise.

I'm not a zealot. I have a gift. Fear of the Lord

Having said that, this is a family and community matter, it should be outside schools.
I'm Roman Catholic. I declined an excellent job offer in Richmond, Va. in the mid 90's
when I learned a Baptist minister would be giving a commencenet speech at a HS
my childern would eventually attend, should I move there. Although, the minister
might be Christian, it offended me that my children would subjected to a possible
interpretation of scriptures which were not in agreement with my church's teachings.



re-v

Evident? How?

Simply, use your senses.
No. Disregard your senses.

Imagine, no senses. Would not your mother, sister or wife care for you?

re-v

Therein is the eternal question: without the senses, what would we be?

A definitive answer requires, and if such proof exists, then the purpose of faith is undermined. Hence my agnosticism.

Forget sense!
Would not your mother, wife or sister care for you?

I understand if it's too personal a question, and you need not reply.

re-v

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ennison

Ah 'tis her lack of knowlege of the theory that leads her to dismiss it as just a theory.

---

A theory, in science, is a hypothesis that so well explains the available empirical evidence so well that it is accepted as fact. Gravity, for example, is 'just a theory'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ennison

Lucy was either human or not. Personally I believe she was every bit as human as you or I, maybe even a bit more.

---

Lucy was not a human, but her ancestors are. No, she is not more human than me, it is not logically possible to be more of a homo sapiens than a homo sapiens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ennison

No 'missing link' has been found because... well ... it's missing.

---

The missing link is not something that you can actually find, it's a request for logically impossible empirical evidence. It can't be found for the same reason that you can't link two points connected on a line by drawing more points on a line, not to the standards of the creationist, anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ennison

And what happened several million years ago is not subject to the proof of empirical investigations.

---

Nothing is 'subject to the proof of empirical investigations'. Proofs happen in mathematics and logic, not in science. There is always room for doubt in empirical evidence. Ask John Locke, who invented the empirical theory of knowledge. Better yet, ask any credible scientist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alennox21

Simply, use your senses.
No. Disregard your senses.

Imagine, no senses. Would not your mother, sister or wife care for you?

---

I hope so. What in blazes does that have to do with the origins of the universe?

Can I say somthing?
I belive that certain parts of the evloutionary theory as I have been led to belive it ( I know that grammer is appaling but Ive had a bad day and its 3am so please forgive me) is absurd and totally illogical. For me God is the most logical belief and hence I belive in creationism but I guess Im a bit of a cheat because I also belive in evolution-- that is I belive that evolution is a tool of Creation. that creation is an eternal process.
But then like robin said if we had definate tangibale proof other than that which you see through the lens of faith, faith in it self would be redundant.
I dont think though that absurd beliefs nessiceraly always lead to atrocities it can but thats more than absurd beliefs thats a conviction rather than a belief There are all sorts of harmless absurd beliefs out there. One off the top of my head is never leaving a pair of scisorrs open, as itll bring bad luck ( well actually the superstion is itll ange the jin wholl get back at you).

Quote:

---

What in blazes does that have to do with the origins of the universe?

---

Um although thats my reactionn too I think I may be wrong here but do you mean alennox21 that forget the senses that you think with and just accept God and then see him as it were?:S
OT: what is re-v??:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nightshade

I dont think though that absurd beliefs nessiceraly always lead to atrocities it can but thats more than absurd beliefs thats a conviction rather than a belief There are all sorts of harmless absurd beliefs out there. One off the top of my head is never leaving a pair of scisorrs open, as itll bring bad luck ( well actually the superstion is itll ange the jin wholl get back at you).

---

It isn't that absurdities always result in atrocities, it's just that atrocities would be impossible without them.

NO I dont think so it doesnt need an absurd belief to make someone go out and shoot people, thats sorry a bit of an ilogical stament dont you think? It means that people only do things because of beliefs and belief systems. WHile as I see it most people do things in an attempt to get somthing for themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nightshade

NO I dont think so it doesnt need an absurd belief to make someone go out and shoot people, thats sorry a bit of an ilogical stament dont you think? It means that people only do things because of beliefs and belief systems. WHile as I see it most people do things in an attempt to get somthing for themselves.

---

The idea that drawing attention to yourself is worth the lives of innocent people is a pretty absurd belief, n'est pas?

Hey, where do you think you come from?
Mother, wife, sister and daughters.
More to the point given no senses, who would maintain you? Who would provide your sustanance?
The universe is on a mad dash to the total opposite pole of love. It's evident that love is the opposite pole and sustains life.
Of course you can commit me to an assylum, but my wife sister and daughters will be at my side.

And, the beauty of it is the beginning of the universe really is no farther away than a loving touch.

Okay, put me in a straght jacket

re-v

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alennox21

Hey, where do you think you come from?
Mother, wife, sister and daughters.
More to the point given no senses, who would maintain you? Who would provide your sustanance?

---

I don't think you're crazy, but you've hardly explained yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alennox21

Mother, wife, sister and daughters.
More to the point given no senses, who would maintain you? Who would provide your sustanance?

---

My mother, (hypothetical) wife, sister and (hypothetical) children, presumeably. What are you driving at? I gather you're trying towards a 'first cause' argument of some sort, but you're not being very clear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alennox21

The universe is on a mad dash to the total opposite pole of love. It's evident that love is the opposite pole and sustains life.

---

What makes you think that the universe is on a mad dash towards hate? Actually, what does that mean?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alennox21

And, the beauty of it is the beginning of the universe really is no farther away than a loving touch.

Okay, put me in a straght jacket

---

If you insist, but I really am interested in what you are driving at.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

The idea that drawing attention to yourself is worth the lives of innocent people is a pretty absurd belief, n'est pas?

---

Not really, Im not sure Id concider it a belief -- I guess thats where it gets tricky where all these eventually end up disinergrating semantics :rolleyes:--
anyway as I was saying is that what they are believeing and do they consider the people at all?

Hows this for an example. War is an attrocity. But war is not always absurd, more often it calculated and scarily logical using the example of macedonia and babylon when which it was went in and masscured the others that was absurded it was cold caluclacted revenge and seizing an opertunity to become a wealthier stronger country.

The building of the suez canal wasnt absurd was it? And yet the egyptains and they are taught this in school- hold that that was an attrocity inflicted on the natives that hundreds if not thousands of 'natives' died /were killed in the digging of that thing. Bu it wasnt absurd it was buisness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nightshade

The building of the suez canal wasnt absurd was it? And yet the egyptains and they are taught this in school- hold that that was an attrocity inflicted on the natives that hundreds if not thousands of 'natives' died /were killed in the digging of that thing. But it wasnt absurd it was buisness.

---

The idea that British pounds are of more value than Egyptian lives is absurd in the highest degree, in my humble opinion. Of course now I'm defining 'absurd' in such a way that I can't possibly be wrong, and defending one of Voltare's little quips is hardly worth it. If I was in your place, I would stop arguing semantics with the obstinant little Canadian over the internet and go to bed.