French Newspaper Attack

[Texsox]

And if many of them are doing exactly that but you don't see them or choose not to see it happening, what does that say about you?

 

Should you be excused from doing less?

 

Geologists are pumping fracking chemicals into our watershed, destroying it and causing earthquakes. But that is your responsibility to denounce, not mine. I'm not a geologist.

[Balta1701]

Should you be excused from doing less?

 

Geologists are pumping fracking chemicals into our watershed, destroying it and causing earthquakes. But that is your responsibility to denounce, not mine. I'm not a geologist.

Actually a very apt comparison. The fact that you make that statement without finding out what I've actually written and said about the subject is not an indictment of me, it's an indictment of you.

[Y2HH]

But then it is no longer your faith, it is as you described a corrupted version.

 

Sorry, using your own example the church can't allow you to just walk away. The Catholic church is still responsible for you no matter what. Even if you leave to practice a corrupted version (or no version) you believe the church leaders and practitioners such as myself, should still have responsibility for you. So how can the church prevent you from committing a crime? You want the mainstream church to be responsible for anyone who claims to be part of that church, even those who leave to practice a corrupt version. That just doesn't make sense to me.

 

This is more reductio ad absurdum/strawman, which is where every religious argument ends up...so I'm not surprised.

 

By your rational, nobody should have to take responsibility for anything, ever, be it religious or otherwise. If you can't see the problem with that line of thinking, it shows exactly what Reddy is talking about. You excuse yourself, and everyone else about everything, so being apathetic to any given situation absolves you (or the group in question) of ALL responsibility. Maybe that's the f***ing problem, it's simply magnified when it comes to religion because it's not a law of the universe...it's something man invented.

 

We HAVE to deal with nature/science, it's a reality of being a carbon based life form, living in a universe dictated by the laws of science/physics. We don't, however, have to deal with religion because it's something man invented thousands of years ago (or 50 years ago in the case of Scientology), but we do have to put up with it because of reasons.

Edited January 11, 2015 by Y2HH

[caulfield12]

Thank you. SPUN OFF OF IT. What does off of it mean to you? To me it means not on, not a part of, it is off not on. Hmm, why would they spin off of it? perhaps IT isn't preaching what they want?

 

So you believe that 1.3 BILLION people on the planet, 23% of the world's population, are being taught weekly to kill non Muslims and to perpetrate this acts of terrorism? Wow, how do you sleep at night?

 

And if churches are responsible for every act of their members, even ones that spin off, who is responsible for the non religious and what they do? Or do you get off without any responsibility? Where do the non religious learn to kill and commit acts of terrorism?

 

How about everyone is expected to not look the other way and to denounce it? Why is that my responsibility and not yours?

 

We can't put a stop to gang violence in this country, maybe we should reevaluate our citizenship as a whole. Stop criminals? Seriously? You are kidding right? Name when that has ever happened by anyone? And you expect a religion with 1.3 billion followers to do that? Wow.

 

 

Opus Dei for example, as chronicled by the Dan Brown books.

 

Was every Christian in Vermont responsible for the actions of the KKK in the Deep South? Where do we draw the line? Should those Muslims all be required to start charities or their own madrassas to counteract the sharia Muslims? Is renouncing them publicly enough?

 

Why isn't anyone speaking out against the oil princes who keep their countries poorly educated and with nothing approaching equality of opportunity or life choice for women? And where does 90% of the terror network funding originate?

 

Logically, buying electric cars is the most effective approach to fight back.

Edited January 11, 2015 by caulfield12

[Balta1701]

Why isn't anyone speaking out against the oil princes who keep their countries poorly educated and with nothing approaching equality of opportunity or life choice for women?

SHHHHHHH.

 

Oil is at $50 a barrel right now! If you say mean things about them they might raise the prices again.

[Texsox]

Actually a very apt comparison. The fact that you make that statement without finding out what I've actually written and said about the subject is not an indictment of me, it's an indictment of you.

 

I was assuming you would be in the anti-fracking community or I have your beliefs way wrong. But should you be tainted with the same broad stroke since you are all geologists? There are classrooms all over that believe fracking is OK. Come on, you must really believe that it's ok. Did you publish that in the past couple days after the Dallas tremors? You must denounce it daily and if the leaders of geology don't also do that, you should consider a different way of life.

 

 

[caulfield12]

This is more reductio ad absurdum/strawman, which is where every religious argument ends up...so I'm not surprised.

 

By your rational, nobody should have to take responsibility for anything, ever, be it religious or otherwise. If you can't see the problem with that line of thinking, it shows exactly what Reddy is talking about. You excuse yourself, and everyone else about everything, so being apathetic to any given situation absolves you (or the group in question) of ALL responsibility. Maybe that's the f***ing problem, it's simply magnified when it comes to religion because it's not a law of the universe...it's something man invented.

 

We HAVE to deal with nature/science, it's a reality of being a carbon based life form, living in a universe dictated by the laws of science/physics. We don't, however, have to deal with religion because it's something man invented thousands of years ago (or 50 years ago in the case of Scientology), but we do have to put up with it because of reasons.

 

Blame the Founding Fathers for that one...or parents.

Edited January 11, 2015 by caulfield12

[Texsox]

By your rational, nobody should have to take responsibility for anything, ever, be it religious or otherwise.

 

Wrong. So very wrong. Just the opposite. All law abiding persons should denounce all criminals. It shouldn't matter if the criminal identifies some group you happen to belong to. Your rational is only denounce those criminals that self identify with something you believe in. Other than that, it's cool. No need to get involved. Let someone else get involved.

[Balta1701]

I was assuming you would be in the anti-fracking community or I have your beliefs way wrong. But should you be tainted with the same broad stroke since you are all geologists? There are classrooms all over that believe fracking is OK. Come on, you must really believe that it's ok. Did you publish that in the past couple days after the Dallas tremors? You must denounce it daily and if the leaders of geology don't also do that, you should consider a different way of life.

Actually with the recent Dallas ones we're not 100% sure. According to multiple reports there are no active pumping operations in the area of the epicenters of those recent quakes, which makes connecting to them tenuous. There are plenty of other ones directly connected to wastewater disposal and now a few directly connected to fracking as well. There's no need to exaggerate. You're painting all earthquakes with the same broad brush.

[Texsox]

Actually with the recent Dallas ones we're not 100% sure. According to multiple reports there are no active pumping operations in the area of the epicenters of those recent quakes, which makes connecting to them tenuous. There are plenty of other ones directly connected to wastewater disposal and now a few directly connected to fracking as well. There's no need to exaggerate. You're painting all earthquakes with the same broad brush.

 

You can paint all people with the same brush but not this? Come on Brian.

 

I believe we can't paint anything with the same broad brush. Not religions, not gun owners, and not earthquakes. Especially people.

[Balta1701]

You can paint all people with the same brush but not this? Come on Brian.

 

I believe we can't paint anything with the same broad brush. Not religions, not gun owners, and not earthquakes. Especially people.

I'm pretty sure I'm the one saying "The huge majority of the Islamic community are denouncing these attacks so it's silly to say that they're not", are you crossing me up with the other people here?

[Texsox]

I'm pretty sure I'm the one saying "The huge majority of the Islamic community are denouncing these attacks so it's silly to say that they're not", are you crossing me up with the other people here?

 

Oops sorry, I was. And it seemed strange. Which is why I went back. Sorry.

[Y2HH]

Edit: Post removed, I'm done with this conversation, and it cements my feelings on religion and how useless it is.

 

If all religion disappeared tomorrow the world would be a better place, not to mention more intelligent.

Edited January 11, 2015 by Y2HH

[Texsox]

Edit: Post removed, I'm done with this conversation, and it cements my feelings on religion and how useless it is.

 

If all religion disappeared tomorrow the world would be a better place, not to mention more intelligent.

 

Who will do all the charity work that churches do around the globe? You are totally dismissing all of that.

 

We will also be better off when non religion is removed from the world. That would be the 388 murders that you non religious types committed in Chicago last year.

[Y2HH]

Who will do all the charity work that churches do around the globe? You are totally dismissing all of that.

 

Bill Gates.

 

Nature abhors a vacuum. If the churches didn't exist, something would fill that charitable void, considering there'd be no money funneling to them and more available elsewhere for other things.

Edited January 11, 2015 by Y2HH

[Texsox]

Bill Gates.

 

Are you referring to the billionaire Bill Gates? Thank you!

 

In an interview with Rolling Stone, Gates stated in regard to his faith:

 

The moral systems of religion, I think, are super important. We've raised our kids in a religious way; they've gone to the Catholic church that Melinda goes to and I participate in. I've been very lucky, and therefore I owe it to try and reduce the inequity in the world. And that's kind of a religious belief. I mean, it's at least a moral belief.

 

from wikipedia.

[Y2HH]

Are you referring to the billionaire Bill Gates? Thank you!

 

 

 

from wikipedia.

 

No. It as actually meant as a joke, it's good to see you could see past those religious blinders and see the joke. Oh, wait.

 

As stated, if the churches weren't stealing money from old people with false promises, that money would still exist and possibly be used even better.

Edited January 11, 2015 by Y2HH

[Texsox]

No. It as actually meant as a joke, it's good to see you could see past those religious blinders and see the joke. Oh, wait.

 

As stated, if the churches weren't stealing money from old people with false promises, that money would still exist and possibly be used even better.

Keep spinning. Face it you gave the worst possible example. Bill Gates donates because of his religious beliefs. As do a lot of other people. Who has blinders on?

[Texsox]

Care to tell me why religion is keeping you from making charitable donations? Care to explain to me why anyone is stopped from doing that? ou say nature abhors a vacuum and other will rush in. Why would people suddenly start donating who don't do so now?

[Texsox]

Actually he doesn't, if you actually read his comment he calls it "moral", because he doesn't believe.

 

In the same interview, Gates said: "I agree with people like Richard Dawkins that mankind felt the need for creation myths. Before we really began to understand disease and the weather and things like that, we sought false explanations for them. Now science has filled in some of the realm – not all – that religion used to fill. But the mystery and the beauty of the world is overwhelmingly amazing, and there's no scientific explanation of how it came about. To say that it was generated by random numbers, that does seem, you know, sort of an uncharitable view [laughs]. I think it makes sense to believe in God, but exactly what decision in your life you make differently because of it, I don't know.

 

I'm sorry if this isn't clear enough for you. He also sends his children to a Catholic school.

 

Face it you pulled a s***ty example out of your ass that supports my argument.

[Y2HH]

I'm sorry if this isn't clear enough for you. He also sends his children to a Catholic school.

 

Face it you pulled a s***ty example out of your ass that supports my argument.

 

Again, the example was a joke. And it doesn't support you, you simply want it too. It's clear he does it for his wife, and his comments make that clear.

Edited January 11, 2015 by Y2HH

[Texsox]

keep trying.

 

You never answered, who is going to fill the void of good works after religion is ended and why aren't they doing it now?

[Texsox]

As a joke when asked who would fill in the charitable works after religion is eradicated you picked someone who clearly believes in God. LOL what a great sense of humor. How funny. Find a current quote where Gates says he doesn't believe in God. After having a child and being involved in charities around the world he has shifted from agnostic to believing. I guess if your wife was a believer you will change like you believe Gates has. I don't think he is doing it because of his wife.

 

You also predicted that after religion is wiped out that people would fill that void. Yet you can't explain why those people aren't already doing charitable deeds. To ignore all the good deeds that people do as part of their faith is silly. I at least admitted that people form perverted religious views and harm people. You even refuse to admit that churches do good works around the world.

[Balta1701]

keep trying.

 

You never answered, who is going to fill the void of good works after religion is ended and why aren't they doing it now?

Come on Tex, you know you can't do this one, it's genuinely unknowable. First of all it makes the assumption that we're only good people when we have a religion telling us to be one, but I submit that people can be good people and do good things without charity.

 

Perhaps you're then proposing that people would give less if they weren't scared of an angry deity, but then I submit in reply that a huge fraction of american's tax deductable donations go to supporting the presence of churches. Hypothetically if all of the money given to churches that runs churches was given to various other charities, suddenly you have several hundred billion per year to give to other charities. Running and operating churches receives more than 1/2 of all charitable donations in this country per year. Yes they do good works with some of that money, but they also buy land, build large buildings, pay salaries, etc. The US Government then chips in nearly $100 billion per year by making all of those moneys tax exempt.

 

Perhaps some people would give less, but let's say that a portion of the money that went to preachers, building churches, Joel OsteOsteen'sd's house and private jet and so on was given instead to food banks and cancer research. You've got less overall donations and more of it actually reaching people in need. Data even suggests that the areas of the country that give the highest amounts to churches give the lowest amounts to other charities, which probably isn't surprising because their charitable donation is running their church.

 

So what would the end result be, more or less available aid for good works? I don't know and neither do you unless you wish to argue to me that people who aren't religious are by definition less moral people.

[Y2HH]

As a joke when asked who would fill in the charitable works after religion is eradicated you picked someone who clearly believes in God. LOL what a great sense of humor. How funny. Find a current quote where Gates says he doesn't believe in God. After having a child and being involved in charities around the world he has shifted from agnostic to believing. I guess if your wife was a believer you will change like you believe Gates has. I don't think he is doing it because of his wife.

 

You also predicted that after religion is wiped out that people would fill that void. Yet you can't explain why those people aren't already doing charitable deeds. To ignore all the good deeds that people do as part of their faith is silly. I at least admitted that people form perverted religious views and harm people. You even refuse to admit that churches do good works around the world.

 

They already are doing charitable deeds.

 

By your ridiculous rationale, and it IS ridiculous, nobody that isn't religious contributes.

 

What a f***ing joke.

 

And Gates comments make it clear he's doing what he's doing because his wife believes. Only a zealot could interpret his word as you are now.

 

I really do have to exit this thread now because it's pretty clear I've gone from serious to trolling. I have nothing against you, Tex, I just don't agree with the religious stuff these days.

Edited January 12, 2015 by Y2HH