Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That would be called the genetic fallacy, or ad hominem. You believe that anyone that believes in the Bible is wrong automatically.
Nope. Not at all. Clearly you don't even understand my position on that, but we know that already.
I believe in the Bible, but I also know that Genesis is a parable. That makes it no less valuable to me, and in fact, increases it's validity if you understand it as a parable and not a literal story that cannot logically be true.
You are very religious. That is your right. But fervent belief short-circuits logic because it overrides it in your mind. As soon as any issue comes anywhere near your religious beliefs, you abandon logic. Deliberately.
Quote:
You might also say that you're guilty of begging the question, as you automatically assume that it is false, with no actual proof.
You also set up a strawman argument of what I actually believe. I don't believe in some massive conspiracy involving all scientists. I realize a lot of scientists do believe in a creator. Many don't. Unfortunately, the status quo in this country makes it almost impossible for any scientist to openly question the sacred cow of evolution.
For a very good, very logical and fact-based reason. But since it doesn't comport with your strict (baptist?) worldview, you ignore the evidence and reject the logic.
So let's put the question to you directly. Forget about whether it is legal or a right or not for this guy to burn a Qu'ran, that isn't debatable.
Tell me whether you think it was ethical and moral for him to do what he did, given the obvious consequences that would occur. Is his opinion more important than the lives of those people who died?
Again, he had MANY choices. He chose the option that he knew would result in innocent people being killed. Tell me how you defend that choice.
Quote:
You're like most atheists, in that you have way of proving your negative assertion, but that doesn't stop you from making your emotional arguments.
And here we go again, you want to lecture me on logic, then you go right ahead and assume facts not in evidence.
Why should he? He's an American, living in America. He should be able to say what he wants without a bunch of idiots on the other side of the world killing people.
Honestly, the fact that anyone is here actually defending that dreadful religion is a crying shame.
I'm not saying he should. I'm pointing out, to those who say the pastor should go over there and burn the koran, that he cannot for he would not have free speech rights. Here he does, of course. Their lack of rights there doesn't affect our rights here.
Nope. Not at all. Clearly you don't even understand my position on that, but we know that already.
I believe in the Bible, but I also know that Genesis is a parable. That makes it no less valuable to me, and in fact, increases it's validity if you understand it as a parable and not a literal story that cannot logically be true.
Considering that the apostle Paul apparently considered Adam and Eve to be literal, real people I don't know that you could really say that. The accepted belief was apparently that it was, in fact, not a parable.
Quote:
You are very religious. That is your right. But fervent belief short-circuits logic because it overrides it in your mind. As soon as any issue comes anywhere near your religious beliefs, you abandon logic. Deliberately.
Including humanistic beliefs? You're committing the genetic fallacy again. You cannot logically make that statement that all Christians abandon logic. That's just not reasonable, and it isn't correct.
Quote:
For a very good, very logical and fact-based reason. But since it doesn't comport with your strict (baptist?) worldview, you ignore the evidence and reject the logic.
I would disagree with you there. There is certainly plenty of evidence for a creator. If you're willing to consider it. Unfortunately, the fact that money and prestige is controlled by those that are not religious, it kind of stifles the ability to actually be neutral regarding the issue, doesn't it?
Quote:
So let's put the question to you directly. Forget about whether it is legal or a right or not for this guy to burn a Qu'ran, that isn't debatable.
Tell me whether you think it was ethical and moral for him to do what he did, given the obvious consequences that would occur. Is his opinion more important than the lives of those people who died?
Ethical and moral? I wouldn't have done it. I honestly don't know that it accomplished a lot. I think he got branded a certain "type" of guy when he did it, and I wouldn't have done it.
Having said that, I don't blame him for what some idiots on the other side of the world did--and the fact that they reacted the way they did further demonstrates that what he and others are saying about islam is, in fact, very true. It is a dreadful, hate-filled religion that is violent in nature. Devout muslims tend to be violent.
Quote:
Again, he had MANY choices. He chose the option that he knew would result in innocent people being killed. Tell me how you defend that choice.
He has the right to protest. I won't take that away from him. It's not at all uncommon for people to say nasty things about Christianity, but you don't see hoards of Lutherans killing people. It's not his fault the religion he protested is bad.
If you're going to say he can't do that, you have to say you can't protest Christianity, or Buddhism, or anything. MLK demonstrating in the 60's resulted in violence. Yes, he was a great man, and yes--he had every right to demonstrate, but he can't be held responsible for the redneck idiots that commit violence as a result.
Quote:
And here we go again, you want to lecture me on logic, then you go right ahead and assume facts not in evidence.
If you were to show an ability to think logically, and not commit the logical fallacies you have, it wouldn't be an issue.
Quote:
I'm not an atheist. Try again.
I suggested you make the same mistakes in logic that most atheists do. Sorry if it seemed as if I was calling you one.
I'm not saying he should. I'm pointing out, to those who say the pastor should go over there and burn the koran, that he cannot for he would not have free speech rights. Here he does, of course. Their lack of rights there doesn't affect our rights here.
The pastor probably would not be allowed into Afghanistan but if he were, he could still burn a Koran publicly , if he so chose. The difference is that burning the Koran over there would get his azz burned and beheaded in a heartbeat. He has no fear of that in this country because his rights to free speech are protected by law. Over there it isn't.
The pastor probably would not be allowed into Afghanistan but if he were, he could still burn a Koran publicly , if he so chose. The difference is that burning the Koran over there would get his azz burned and beheaded in a heartbeat. He has no fear of that in this country because his rights to free speech are protected by law. Over there it isn't.
Which largely points out why radical Islam is so powerful, and growing. Because they "win" through terror and intimidation. Which of the following are you going to respond to:
An athiest that tells you that myth and superstition are silly. That you are responsible for yourself and your happiness.
A Christian that says Jesus forgives you and you should respect others. And that you should pray for those that don't believe as you do.
Or a Radical Muslim that says believe as I do or I'll cut your head off. And if you blow yourself up because I say to, you'll go to Allah and get 72 virgins.
???
It's pretty apparent which ones wins the propaganda war
Which largely points out why radical Islam is so powerful, and growing. Because they "win" through terror and intimidation. Which of the following are you going to respond to:
An athiest that tells you that myth and superstition are silly. That you are responsible for yourself and your happiness.
A Christian that says Jesus forgives you and you should respect others. And that you should pray for those that don't believe as you do.
Or a Radical Muslim that says believe as I do or I'll cut your head off. And if you blow yourself up because I say to, you'll go to Allah and get 72 virgins.
???
It's pretty apparent which ones wins the propaganda war
I don't claim to be an expert on what brings Muslims into the radical jihadist camp but common sense tells me that it is none of the above; it would more likely be they learn from radical jihadist mentors to hate America and they become convinced that destroying America--and by extension all of the Western world--is what Allah would want and if they do what Allah wants and die in the process, Allah will welcome them into heaven as martyrs.
Radical Islam--indeed, radical anything--appeals not to the rational mind but to a mind that is irrational.
Considering that the apostle Paul apparently considered Adam and Eve to be literal, real people I don't know that you could really say that. The accepted belief was apparently that it was, in fact, not a parable.
Paul didn't know any paleontologists or geologists, so he gets a pass on honest ignorance.
It's the people who are willfully ignorant that worry me.
Quote:
Including humanistic beliefs? You're committing the genetic fallacy again. You cannot logically make that statement that all Christians abandon logic. That's just not reasonable, and it isn't correct.
Not all Christians abandon logic. Just ones that believe the Bible is 100% literally true when facts and logic clearly demonstrate otherwise. Theologically, I also disagree with the ridiculous notion that the Bible HAS to be literally true to be religiously valid or valuable. The lessons are what they are whether Jesus really walked on water, or if He just pulled off a great practical joke to make a point. It doesn't matter. The lesson is the same whether he miracled loaves and fishes into existence, or if what I suspect really happened, He shamed the selfish crowd into sharing the food they had. In fact, the NON-literal interpretation of that story is closer to the Message than the literal one!
No one except the human authors of the Bible will ever know what got exaggerated to make a point that would play well with the audience of the age.
Not even all Calvinists believe the Bible is literally true. I hate to break this to you, Calvinist, but your literalist beliefs are actually very much in the minority among Christians - as are most aspects of Creationism. Just ask the Pope. He's got a few followers, from what I hear.
Quote:
I would disagree with you there. There is certainly plenty of evidence for a creator.
Not really. But belief is still not illogical depending on how it is expressed. I may have been raised a good Southern Methodist boy, but I find as much truth about the nature of God in the Tao Te Ching as I do in the New Testament, and certainly more than I could find in the Old. And they are not incompatible beliefs, once you shed any illogical requirement that things be literally true.
Quote:
If you're willing to consider it. Unfortunately, the fact that money and prestige is controlled by those that are not religious, it kind of stifles the ability to actually be neutral regarding the issue, doesn't it?
My God is bigger than just one book, Calvinist. And plenty of money and prestige are controlled by those who are religious (or claim to be). Spare me the poor persecuted Christian stuff. I don't buy it.
Quote:
Ethical and moral? I wouldn't have done it.
OK, now we are getting somewhere. Why wouldn't you have done it? I expect you would not have done it for the very same reasons that *I* would not have done it. And we came to the same conclusion even though I don't believe in a l100% literal Bible. See? It really makes no difference.
Quote:
I honestly don't know that it accomplished a lot. I think he got branded a certain "type" of guy when he did it, and I wouldn't have done it.
I certainly hope that public perception would not be the only thing holding you back.
Quote:
Having said that, I don't blame him for what some idiots on the other side of the world did--and the fact that they reacted the way they did further demonstrates that what he and others are saying about islam is, in fact, very true. It is a dreadful, hate-filled religion that is violent in nature. Devout muslims tend to be violent.
I might take issue with the word "devout", because I think it is possible for a religious person, including a muslim, to be devout without being radical. I even think it possible to be devout without being fundamentalist.
But the muslim fundamentalists, who take the Qu'ran TOO LITERALLY, are certainly dangerous and everything you describe above. My point is, their dangerousness stems not only from ideas indemic to Islam, but also from a mindset that they share with every other religious fundamentalist: that their way is the ONLY way; that their religious text is literally true; that anything that contradicts that is false ab initio without regard to logic or facts; and that anyone that disagrees is an infidel. Fundamentalist Christians threaten people with Hell all the time. Fundamentalist Muslims are just that much more practical with their...disagreement.
Quote:
He has the right to protest. I won't take that away from him. It's not at all uncommon for people to say nasty things about Christianity, but you don't see hoards of Lutherans killing people. It's not his fault the religion he protested is bad.
Because most Lutherans aren't fundamentalists. It IS his fault for being a very bad example of HIS religion.
Quote:
If you're going to say he can't do that, you have to say you can't protest Christianity, or Buddhism, or anything. MLK demonstrating in the 60's resulted in violence. Yes, he was a great man, and yes--he had every right to demonstrate, but he can't be held responsible for the redneck idiots that commit violence as a result.
I never said he can't. I said he shouldn't under these circumstances, and that he could have chosen a less dangerous and inflammatory means to express himself, one that would not have resulted in 20 innocent people being horribly killed.
Quote:
If you were to show an ability to think logically, and not commit the logical fallacies you have, it wouldn't be an issue.
Calvinist, I am sure you are a nice guy in real life. But really, you are not in any position to lecture me on logic. Atheists are very logical in general, but they make one big glaring logical mistake. One cannot logically prove that God does not exist.
That doesn't prove that He does, but logically, an intellectually, strictly logical atheist would have to admit that they really are just an agnostic.
Which largely points out why radical Islam is so powerful, and growing. Because they "win" through terror and intimidation. Which of the following are you going to respond to:
An athiest that tells you that myth and superstition are silly. That you are responsible for yourself and your happiness.
A Christian that says Jesus forgives you and you should respect others. And that you should pray for those that don't believe as you do.
Or a Radical Muslim that says believe as I do or I'll cut your head off. And if you blow yourself up because I say to, you'll go to Allah and get 72 virgins.
???
It's pretty apparent which ones wins the propaganda war
I think we win in the long term...barring playing into their hands with propaganda stunts that serve their purposes more than ours!
With education, people will eventually stop believing the nonsense. It's no accident that radical Islam tends to take hold in populations that are not particularly educated.
I don't claim to be an expert on what brings Muslims into the radical jihadist camp but common sense tells me that it is none of the above; it would more likely be they learn from radical jihadist mentors to hate America and they become convinced that destroying America--and by extension all of the Western world--is what Allah would want and if they do what Allah wants and die in the process, Allah will welcome them into heaven as martyrs.
Radical Islam--indeed, radical anything--appeals not to the rational mind but to a mind that is irrational.
And now the $10,000 question. How do you fight the irrational? Killing them all isn't our way. By definition, you can't reason with them. If you try to build them schools and educate them, they slaughter you for blastphomy. So, how do you fight it?
I maintain that humor and mockery is as good a way as any. Point at them and laugh at their antics, point out how foolish they are. In a way, that is what Jones did. Got any better solutions? I gotta admit, we've tried most everything else.
And now the $10,000 question. How do you fight the irrational? Killing them all isn't our way. By definition, you can't reason with them. If you try to build them schools and educate them, they slaughter you for blastphomy. So, how do you fight it?
I maintain that humor and mockery is as good a way as any. Point at them and laugh at their antics, point out how foolish they are. In a way, that is what Jones did. Got any better solutions? I gotta admit, we've tried most everything else.
One solution would be to get our guys the hell out of the Middle East, and let them fight amongst themselves over that hell hole! If they still continue to screw with us, then well.... I guess the gloves are off.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
