bullshit you are the one touting unfounded beliefs here. doreen and i are the ones that ask you to substantiate what appears to be crap you pull out of your ass. frakkin woo woo whats next, q? they parted the red sea as they left on this "exodus"? /contempt
for the sake of the casual readers--and those who occasionally, whilst procrastinating from what they ought to be doing, post irreverent/irrelevant observations and queries--could someone please define the following terms: -- nutter -- woo-woo -- insane (individual) are such individuals those who entertain delusions? or are they those who believe that they entertain no delusions, yet find themselves amongst a group who are sympathetic to their delusions? (i think i already know the answer to this one, but just thought i'd ask anyway.) or, are such individuals simply those perceived as "irrational" by the aforementioned group? oh, and nietzsche was a rationalist? that's a new one.
That wasn't an argument, Sniffy, nor was it proof of anything other than your opinion. There are clear definitions of the word "theocracy" and I implore you to show how the USA is a theocracy. Fine, I was referring to the man. Most people interchange the words seamlessly. Christianity evolved, Sniffy over a period of several centuries. St. Paul may have had an agenda, but he was hardly the creator of it. Christianity bears little resemblance now to what it was in St. Paul's time. In his time, it was actually something good. By the time of the Synod of Hypo, it became a corrupt power hungry organization. I'm not talking about Q. Talk to Q about him, not me. Sure, but that topic doesn't interest me. ~String
Define theocracy as you understand it. Theism permeates every level of American society including the government. As you said yourself there are few athiests in America. Now you tell me exactly how the US keeps its all permeating theism out of government. Therin lies the problem. How does a man become a god? A man who wasn't a god in his lifetime and never demonstrated any godlike powers as far as I can tell. Such powers were added much later; indeed a long time after 'Jesus' actually lived. Jesus was a jew who was pretty tee'd off with how 'lax' jews had become in adhering to jewish law. All the rest is history and revisionist history at that! St Paul was a currupt power hungry organiser from what I can garner from my research. Had St Paul not championed 'Christ' there would be no christianity. Could you demonstrate in what way christianity was 'good' in St Paul's time? And how does what was 'good' in St Paul's time bear any relation to today? I don't talk to woo woos. Stick to Jesus then.
Sniffy, you made the statement, in this forum, and in life in general, the person who makes the affirmative statement is required to prove it. Sorry, you can't make a statement ("The USA is a theocracy") and then tell other people to prove you wrong. You are required to back that statement up with facts. A theocracy as defined by Webster is, "government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided." Or from Wiki, a "Theocracy is a form of government in which a god or deity is recognized as the state's supreme civil ruler, or in a higher sense, a form of government in which a state is governed by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely." None of these apply in the real sense in the USA. That the words "In God We Trust" appear on money or that one can see religious scripture in the halls of Congress doe not indicate that it is a de facto theocracy, merely that Christianity is the predominate religious force in the USA. It's illogical to demand that the cultural and religious force that over 90% of the population of a specific country believes in be walled totally off from the halls of government. It's just not possible. You might as well tell the members of Congress to speak another language while you're at it. You are making the mistake that because religion permeates society, the government that rules it is a theocracy. This is false. That the men and women in our government have religious beliefs, and allow those beliefs to adjust their judgment doesn't mean that we they are religious leaders or that they have imposed religious rule on a nation. You don't get to move goal posts just so you can say, "See, I'm right." It doesn't work like that. There is a clear, legal separation of church and state in the USA. While it, annoyingly, doesn't always live up to this rule 100% of the time, this doesn't mean that the government apparatus itself is a theocracy. Now, you made a statement, now you are required to back it up. The reason why you have not, heretofore, done that is simple: You can't. You've done a great job of stating your belief, but making a logical assertion and backing it up are two different things. To reiterate: You've made the logical leap, now you have to support it with facts. Whatever Sniffy. Stop boring me with your internal dialogue. I don't give a damn what you think about where Christianity comes from nor am I impressed with your meanderings. The point that I made was: Most contemporary people interchange "Jesus" and "Christ". You can take up your issue on this linguistic anomaly with somebody else. I don't believe in God. I am an atheist. So, whatever else you're attempting to say, really has no bearing on the discussion at all. Okay. So, could you regale us with all your scholarly research? In St. Paul lived in Roman times. He was an oppressed christian in a time when Christianity was poorly organized and who's primary focus was meeting with poor people in their homes, feeding them and ministering to their souls. It's primary attraction, in that age, was it's appeal to those without power because it (at its core) was "the great equalizer" in that all men were equal before God. Under Roman mythology, rich, powerful people in this life were rich and powerful in the afterlife. Moreover, it isn't incumbent upon me to prove that "Paul was good" because that is the accepted notion. You are making the contrary statement, and therefore, again, it is incumbent upon you to show (as in, scholarly works) how he was not so good. Even the most cursory, and respected works on Early Christianity agree that the body of believers in that time was wholly different than it was just 500 years later. Some of the more respected works on the early church include: "The History of the Church: From Christ to Constantine" by Eusebius (probably one of the best, classical works on the early church) and "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic: The Early Church Was the Catholic Church" by Kenneth D. Whitehead. Good. Then you can avoid talking to him and avoid talking to me about him. Are you asking? Because heretofore, I've struggled with keeping your posts on track. ~String
So, what you're saying is he would be forced to think? That would be tragic for a Catholic, might get an aneurysm. He would be insane to dismiss reality in favor of delusion. Why would I force anyone to think?
This might be a troll thought.. But you could construct a test to screen out new members, hence making them more in line with elitist "scholarly" thought.. Like that IQ dating site..
I've heard this before in a thread Oli started, and I'll say it again. The only thing it would be a test for, is to see whether or not the user knew how to use Google or another similar search engine.
Yes that coud help to make this place less inclusive... but it seems like certan people who deem themselfs as "scholary" spend a good porton of ther time discussin thangs wit people who they clame dont qualify/deserve to be here... so why do you scholary people want the "riff-raff" baned when you seem to enjoy slicin an dicin 'em an puttin 'em in ther palce... i mean... it ant as if you scholars coudnt jus discuss amongst you'rselfs an ignore the un-worthy.???
The facts are that 90% of people in the US are christians (according to your figures). 'In god we trust' is printed on your money. Your monuments and governmental buildings are inscribed with christian statements. Your leaders consistently invoke 'god' as their guide and used language deliberately chosen to 'activate' the christian majority. Your institutions are guided by christian priciples. Your laws are derived directly from christian laws. Now given all that you and I have said you prove to me how your government keeps this "all permeating god" out of its politics? They speak the language of christianity by all accounts. Such language is understood by christians (and those of other faiths incidentally) around the world. But you do get to move the goal posts..... If people use their christianity (or other faith) to "adjust their judgement" they are using their beliefs, not reason, to make those judgements. Sounds illegal in a place where church and state are supposed to be separate. If something doesn't live up to something else I suggest that things are not as 'clear' and 'legal' as you woud like. This is not annoying. It is in fact, again, illegal. Thanks for your endorsement. You don't give a damn. You are not impressed. Noted. It's ok to say you 'don't understand' string. Are you a scholar string? Is this another of your scholarly statements from this website: Got any scholarly quotes and links or just blanket statements. This christianity of yours sounds like a socialist movement not a religion. String if you "Paul was good". In your own words: "the person who makes the affirmative statement is required to prove it." So you accept that christianity is totally made up and bears no relation whatever to the jew, 'Jesus'? And these respected works prove what about christianity? Yes, I've noticed.
Good pont... but what coud be done is... new mambers... an mos importently "selected" curent mamers coud be givin som test questons wit yes or no answrs which they have to answr immediately so they dont have time to google.!!! An the questons shud not only be a test of a potential mambers knowledge but of ther charactor.!!! Suggested Questons::: Are you agans takin recreational durgs.??? Do you agree Jesus lived... but wasnt necesarly the son of God.??? Do you agree that children shudnt be spanked.??? Do you agree that theists are crazy.??? Do you agree that Vegetarinas have beter morals.??? Do you agree that you'r dreams are artificialy induced.??? Do you agree that humans dont have "free-will".??? ------------- You know... jus som basic stuff... but still... rong answrs to any of those questons above woud eliminate 92.7 % of Trolls.!!! ---------- Edit::: Well aparently so... cause you ant the only one whos mentoned how ponted i am :shrug:
that is a fine suggestion and an excellent set of questions. i would add two: -- do you have faith in reason? -- do you vow to bring down those whose "reason" does not correlate directly with your own? edit: oh, and a third: -- have you stopped beating your wife?
So we are left with you making an assertion based on intuition in a thread complaining about a lack of scholarly and intelligent posts and posters. You have formed a belief based on some process that you trust to a very high degree, but which you cannot display for others. Again, I fully understand your unwillingness to do an archival search and statistical analysis. However, despite not having done that, you are certain you are correct. Despite the fact intuition about the past is likely to have all the fallacies that create nostaligic estimates and judgments. You would not accept posts based on intuition elsewhere in sciforums. Is there a reason for us to accept it here. This last response of yours says that I am free to maintain my belief. But the truth is I am skeptical about your belief, just as you are skeptical about beliefs elsewhere. My requests for evidence/support, have been met by at least one ad hom on your part - implying I am drunk for asking for it - and uncharitable characterizations of the request - that it is nitpicking. Is it nitpicking to ask for support evidence in relation to assertions? I thought that was the whole point of this thread.
This has nothing to do with intuition. As I said before, you are free to do so. No, it wasn't. Read the OP again. It was a request for Fraggle to clarify his statements made in another thread, why aren't you asking him?
How did you arrive at your conclusion such that you could assert it without qualification. You did not do archival work (understandibly). You did not do scholarly work - for example backing up the claim with reference to articles on trends in internet discussion forums. You did not demonstrate that other causes did not change things. Nor, in fact, have you demonstrated that they changed. You asserted something bases on estimates made by you based on memory. The kind of process that is often fallible and subject to all the distortions involved in nostalgia. Would you take this as an adequate response in the religion forum? If someone there said to you. You are free not to believe me. IOW they were not interested in proselytizing.
