E3 Keynote Speaker Says Non-Christians Will Burn In Hell

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4
 

Arbre:

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Right. So...I fail to see your point.

I was just commenting on the Pope's words, not engaging into a debate with you. :)

And I'm engaging you in a debate about your comments ;)

What?
Please, don't make things more complicated than they are. I was handled an improper analogy, which in no way helped to dispute the idea that fear of Hell is just "therrorism".

Why is the analogy improper?

It should be quickier if people could be honest with themselves for a second, and really wonder why they believe in religion X. I'm sure, if they do their job well, that they'd would realize that it has little to do with a proper and well nurtured reasonning, but more to do with flocking (bandwagon style), mystical awe for merry tales, fallacy of age, fallacy of quantity, feeling of security in believing something assumed as "strong", and in most cases, being forced to believe in it during the first parts of childhood.

The same could be said of being honest with ourselves about our belief that our parents love us.

This would be a short lived debate which, I'm afraid, has no relevance there. Please keep it on rails.

It has plenty of relevance. You can't call atheists 'people who demand proof of everything they believe as if it were scientific phenomenon' if they don't make such a demand. You criticized what the Pope said for not subjecting his belief about god to such a demand--why don't you criticize atheists for not making a similar demand of something they 'know' like the fact that their parents love them?

Yes, but I never said I was an extreme atheist.

I never said you were. However, you seem to have harsher words for religious people than atheists, and if the above is your motivation, well, it's hypocritical to chastise one group for a certain behavior and not another.

Just because all people believing in A are necessarily irrational doesn't mean any act of belief in not-A is necessarily rational. When it comes to the question of whether you are acting rationally in believing something, it's not enough that what you believe in is rational; you must also be motivated by reason and not by something else to believe it.

That said, atheism is wise in the sense that it requires proof that something exists, and doesn't rely on empty claims. That's basically how science works to sort the nonsense out of possibly good suppositions.

Atheism doesn't necessarily require scientific proof that something exists, just that god exists. Plenty of atheists believe in things that cannot be found under a microscope, things like human rights.

(and let's leave out atheists that don't believe in god because of the problem of evil, or for some other reason that isn't the Occam's Razor/entity multiplication that you're talking about here; the atheism net is wider than you're characterizing it as here.)

In any case, the intellectual basis for atheism and the psychological roots of an atheist's belief are two different things. You are addressing the former here; in the part you quoted, I was addressing the latter.

What I'm trying to draw your attention to is the fact that we subject a religious belief to a scientific standard, yet we don't subject a romantic belief or a belief about what it means to be a family or a belief that 'all men are created equal' to the same standard. Do *you* subject every single belief you hold to the rigor you were saying the Pope failed to impose upon his own beliefs? If you don't, then why not?

Wait... how the hell did we end up with the content of pages 2 and 3?

I swear if it wasn't for your religious beliefs all the people arguing here could be lovers, your exactly the same!

MY INPUT 1)

given that this man was speaking to a group of like-minded individuals, do we have the right to get indignant as those he was not specifically addressing? he wasn't shouting through your mail-slot, you were listening through his.

MY INPUT 2)

Do you atheists really care that much? if he's so wrong why do you insist on getting an asscramp whenever somebody says something like this? Either your not as sure as you think... or your just argumentative dicks.

MY INPUT 3)

Do you believers really care that much? If they're so wrong then why do you insist on getting an asscramp whenever they attack something like this? Either your not as sure as you think... or your just argumentative dicks.

Ill repeat what i said earlier, apart from where you spend your sundays you people are more conformist than any church.

- Ultrajoe, fighting ignorance everywhere since 1985, Flawless Victories by appointment.

James 9-13

9With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God's likeness. 10 Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be. 11Can both fresh water and salt[a] water flow from the same spring? 12My brothers, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water.
13Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show it by his good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom.

Here is a thought what if Christians read the Bible! Gasp what a thought....

Ultrajoe:

MY INPUT 1)

given that this man was speaking to a group of like-minded individuals, do we have the right to get indignant as those he was not specifically addressing? he wasn't shouting through your mail-slot, you were listening through his.

It's actually far worse than him shouting through my mail-slot. He "prodded his audience to fight "moral weakness," to vote for religious candidates and oppose same-sex marriage, saying, "God is the Supreme Court.""

In other words, he was speaking to a group of like-minded individuals to go out into the world and control the lives of differently minded individuals. Huge distinction, don't you think?

MY INPUT 2)

Do you atheists really care that much? if he's so wrong why do you insist on getting an asscramp whenever somebody says something like this? Either your not as sure as you think... or your just argumentative dicks.

I can't speak for atheists because I'm not one, but, as a theist who strongly believes in the separation of church and state, yes--my ass could use a good massage. On the one hand there is my abstract belief that atheists have the right not to have religion pushed into their lives. On the other is my concrete belief that the kind of religion he is advocating won't be very friendly to my particular flavor of religion.

MY INPUT 3)

Do you believers really care that much? If they're so wrong then why do you insist on getting an asscramp whenever they attack something like this? Either your not as sure as you think... or your just argumentative dicks.

I like to take the piss out of atheists who think they're all rational and scientific and really haven't thought on the issue beyond the shallow slogans.

I also require ass massages when someone confuses necessary and sufficient, so I wouldn't say it has to do with me being a believer, but rather a big fan of philosophy in general.

Cheeze_Pavilion:
Why is the analogy improper?

See what Geof42 and I said about that please.

It has plenty of relevance.

The bit about parents loving us?
Not at all.

You can't call atheists 'people who demand proof of everything they believe as if it were scientific phenomenon' if they don't make such a demand.

That demand is automatically formulated by the fact of being atheist.

You criticized what the Pope said for not subjecting his belief about god to such a demand--why don't you criticize atheists for not making a similar demand of something they 'know' like the fact that their parents love them?

Because it's irrelevant. It's a red herring that has no bearing at all on the topic. Stop evading the question.

I never said you were. However, you seem to have harsher words for religious people than atheists, and if the above is your motivation, well, it's hypocritical to chastise one group for a certain behavior and not another.

This is false. I discussed about both sides.

That said, atheism is wise in the sense that it requires proof that something exists, and doesn't rely on empty claims. That's basically how science works to sort the nonsense out of possibly good suppositions.

Atheism doesn't necessarily require scientific proof that something exists, just that god exists.

I didn't say the contrary. I merely said that their request is a scientific one, within the topic of religion, since atheism is religion related after all.
An atheist doesn't accept the idea that a or several gods exist without the proof of such.

Plenty of atheists believe in things that cannot be found under a microscope, things like human rights.

This has to be the most absurd analogy ever made.

In any case, the intellectual basis for atheism and the psychological roots of an atheist's belief are two different things. You are addressing the former here; in the part you quoted, I was addressing the latter.

Actually, my "bit" did also look at the psychology behind beliefs or lack of beliefs, like feelings, terror and such, which aren't necessarily the result of a reflexion, but just that, feelings and related to behavour, both leading them and resulting from them.

What I'm trying to draw your attention to is the fact that we subject a religious belief to a scientific standard, yet we don't subject a romantic belief or a belief about what it means to be a family or a belief that 'all men are created equal' to the same standard. Do *you* subject every single belief you hold to the rigor you were saying the Pope failed to impose upon his own beliefs? If you don't, then why not?

What is there to subject to science about love?

Ultrajoe:
MY INPUT 1)

given that this man was speaking to a group of like-minded individuals, do we have the right to get indignant as those he was not specifically addressing? he wasn't shouting through your mail-slot, you were listening through his.

I don't recall the E3 being a christian meeting.

Sen. Perry would like Doom 3, I think. I bet he didn't know that Hell is also filled with ammo crates.

now i might get banned for this, but i dont care, religion has got to go, if you look at history, what is the primary reason for War?, thats right, Religion, whats the primary reason for jews being persecuted?, Religion, its all Bullshit, the world would be a better place if everyone just realised that they should live their own lifes like they wanted to, and not follow some made up story from 2000 years ago, Jesus Christ never existed, God never existed, Heaven and Hell never existed, Its all Bullshit!

Ultrajoe:

MY INPUT 1)

given that this man was speaking to a group of like-minded individuals, do we have the right to get indignant as those he was not specifically addressing? he wasn't shouting through your mail-slot, you were listening through his.

Cheeze_Pavilion:

It's actually far worse than him shouting through my mail-slot. He "prodded his audience to fight "moral weakness," to vote for religious candidates and oppose same-sex marriage, saying, "God is the Supreme Court.""

In other words, he was speaking to a group of like-minded individuals to go out into the world and control the lives of differently minded individuals. Huge distinction, don't you think?

You seem to be referring to Rev. Hagee, whereas I believe Ultrajoe was talking about Gov. Perry.

Arbre:
I don't recall the E3 being a christian meeting.

That's why Perry wasn't at E3 making these remarks. And, hopefully, will NOT be making these kinds of remarks, when at E3 (and there is no evidence to suggest that he would, given that all we have so far are religious comments made at a religious function, and later in the same day, in regards to said religious function).

Arbre:

Geoffrey42:

What I find interesting there is that you place the condemning act on the individuals. The individuals, on the other hand, would say it is their understanding that God is condemning those individuals. It is not their judgment which condemns (which kind of goes back to Perry saying this is what he understood, but he also understood that he can't know everything about what God does), but God condemning them. If you want to argue that this is just some sort of proxy setup so that people can feel alright about condemning others to hell, then sure, go for it. Sort of a different argument.

Complicity, yes. Then it makes God intolerant. Oh, why would he bother, since he's God anyway?
But then, why would an entity such as God would even take time setting up a system where mere unbelieving mortal would go to "Hell"?
The core concept is absolutely absurd.
A true God wouldn't bother.
It makes this version of God just a petulant child who spits at the screen because the AI doesn't do what he ordered it to do with his mouse.

I find it hard to condemn complicity with the actions of an omnipotent being. If you do not believe, then you aren't exactly going to "defy" the actions of something you don't believe in. And if you do believe in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being who is the source of all that is Good in the world, you may very well question yourself before questioning the deity if you have doubts about how the deity chooses to go about its business.

Personally, I've always fantasized that, if there is a deity who is going to judge my immortal soul, and sends those that chose not to believe based on a complete lack of evidence into the pits of some sort of punishment area, that I would spit in its face for being a jerk. Unlike the gods of some other mythologies, there aren't exactly a bunch of stories of men going up against God and coming out on top.

You also seem to be making the case that the God who falls into this category can't be, because he wouldn't be a very good or sensible deity. I don't know that this is something that can be debated. If there is an omnipotent deity, just one of them, they don't have to live up to our ideal of what a deity should be. They get to do whatever they want. God may be a petulant child spitting at the screen; there's not much we could do about it.

Ok, I'm going to be "That guy" here I think... Ok, there was once a US politian who said that thy universe and everything in it was designed by God. And that very god's son started a cult which has exploded into a religion named after thy son in question. And that cult says that anyone who doesn't believe in thy cult will go to a place to burn. A place which no one alive has ever seen, and there is no evidence of thy fire pit of pain...unless you count the many large deserts in the world. Well, maybe not, but close enough.

The thing is, if you couldn't grasp from my above text, that everything from the bible may be real, or may be fiction. But all in all, what someone says shouldn't be taken as the be all and end all of everything. If the world is truly going to become together in harmony, side by side on my piano keyboard, oh lord, they should really look at themselves, and think, "Is there proof of a god, a place called hell? If not, ignore it."

And just to be sure I have established my point, I do have an open mind on things. There is a lot that can be learnt through Cristianity, good will, kindness towards others, try your best to better youreslf, and for the most part, thats all well and good. Many other religions say the same thing. It's when we start taken not the lessons taught, but who origionaly taught them, along with the so called "punishments" for not following a particualar persons teachings, and hold them in such high reguard we worship them, problems erupt, simple words can be seen as an attack on others, and conflict and anger festers.

So, to end all this, I'll say this: "Lead a good life, no matter what you believe. Don't let what people say get to you. Don't let the finer details of the many believes stop you seeing the greater good they try and teach. And don't allow one person's high belief in a religion cause you to start looking at your own for a shield."

There you go, my 2c's, and if it sparks more comments, good for my open mind...

Arbre:

Ultrajoe:
MY INPUT 1)

given that this man was speaking to a group of like-minded individuals, do we have the right to get indignant as those he was not specifically addressing? he wasn't shouting through your mail-slot, you were listening through his.

I don't recall the E3 being a christian meeting.

you shouldn't, because if you'd read the damn article he wasn't saying these things at E3...

if you suckle the medias teat like a baby, i'm going to treat you like a child.

and for the record i'm christian Cheeze_pavillion, although in religious arguments i try to keep it ambiguous so i don't become 'that Christian guy', to be frank i dislike anybody who argues faith against another faction (and i have not, before someone feels smart, ive argued against argument)

and i still think my sentiment stands, if the other side is so damned wrong then why do you give a crap? and if your here to bait then quite frankly hell will come into existence/create new ways to hurt you just to punish your sorry ass. Why do i give a crap you ask? because nobody here is 'wrong', but this process of needless bicker is.

Arbre:

What is there to subject to science about love?

What is there to subject to science about religious belief?

Fronken:
now i might get banned for this, but i dont care, religion has got to go, if you look at history, what is the primary excuse for War used by greedy individuals?, thats right, Religion,

There, I fixed that for you. ;-D

whats the primary reason for jews being persecuted?, Religion, its all Bullshit,

Actually, wasn't the Holocaust justified by the Nazis not so much on the basis of religion, but on some crazy conspiracy theory about disloyalty during WWI? I'm not saying there hasn't been *any* war on the basis of religion, but haven't most religious 'wars' been about one prince trying to get more people to obey the religious leaders he's got control of?

Ultrajoe:

and i still think my sentiment stands, if the other side is so damned wrong then why do you give a crap? and if your here to bait then quite frankly hell will come into existence/create new ways to hurt you just to punish your sorry ass. Why do i give a crap you ask? because nobody here is 'wrong', but this process of needless bicker is.

Where did I ever say atheists were 'wrong'?

L.B. Jeffries:

Xanadu84:

SilentHunter7:
I always thought virtuous non-believers would get sent to Limbo, not Hell.

That was mainly Dante, and he played VERY fast and loose with Christian beliefs. He made up a ton of stuff, sent random popes to hell, and did some staggering justification to put some pre-christ people in heaven. Hes not really canonical.

Dante is the only person who actually posited a philosophical basis for Hell that both made sense and that I'd agree with. And the popes he put in Hell were all corrupt bastards.

I know he's not cannon, but he put a lot of humanity into the faith.

I didn't say he wasn't awesome, I just said that if you only take the bible into account, and as empirical fact, he plays very fast and loose. I personally think thats fine, but its not a viewpoint taken by any particular religion, to the best of my knowledge.

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Ultrajoe:

and i still think my sentiment stands, if the other side is so damned wrong then why do you give a crap? and if your here to bait then quite frankly hell will come into existence/create new ways to hurt you just to punish your sorry ass. Why do i give a crap you ask? because nobody here is 'wrong', but this process of needless bicker is.

Where did I ever say atheists were 'wrong'?

you didn't, i was preempting a comment (its the internet, if you don't you will be consumed) along the lines of "well if we're so wrong, why do you give a crap"...

Geoffrey42:
I find it hard to condemn complicity with the actions of an omnipotent being.

Well, of course, you're not left with many choices. :|

If you do not believe, then you aren't exactly going to "defy" the actions of something you don't believe in.

Of course not, from my point of view I only challenge the idiocy of an absurd concept among a billion.

And if you do believe in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being who is the source of all that is Good in the world, you may very well question yourself before questioning the deity if you have doubts about how the deity chooses to go about its business.

Why so?
If the super being is behind everything in this universe, or at least everything good (wait, did God get demoded or something recently? I didn't get the note), then it still doesn't answer the question of why would he'd give a damn if humans don't believe in him.

Personally, I've always fantasized that, if there is a deity who is going to judge my immortal soul, and sends those that chose not to believe based on a complete lack of evidence into the pits of some sort of punishment area, that I would spit in its face for being a jerk. Unlike the gods of some other mythologies, there aren't exactly a bunch of stories of men going up against God and coming out on top.

I've been, like probably many, dreaming of this if that God stuff would ever be true. It would be funny, give him the finger, and side with Satan, grow an army for the horny guy and go kick some ass in heavens.

You also seem to be making the case that the God who falls into this category can't be, because he wouldn't be a very good or sensible deity. I don't know that this is something that can be debated. If there is an omnipotent deity, just one of them, they don't have to live up to our ideal of what a deity should be. They get to do whatever they want. God may be a petulant child spitting at the screen; there's not much we could do about it.

Oh. And so you'd believe in such a retarded guy/girl/shemale/whatever?
What humans can come up with, just to make life worse, is literally incredible.

Ultrajoe:

Arbre:
I don't recall the E3 being a christian meeting.

you shouldn't, because if you'd read the damn article he wasn't saying these things at E3...

if you suckle the medias teat like a baby, i'm going to treat you like a child.

Well first I like teats.
Secondly, my point is that since the E3 is not supposed to be a christian convention of any sort, there's that governor guy who's basically going to be talking to a vast room full of people already listed on that charter flight to Hell, because they don't share his beliefs. Cool eh?
I think the E3 staff could have picked a better figure rather that this fuckhead. But hey! his hairdo is top class.

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Arbre:

What is there to subject to science about love?

What is there to subject to science about religious belief?

Ah, Jesuit dodging now. Fine.
Love is an emotion any normal human can feel.
You don't have to put love to trials, according to scientific standards to verify its existence, since we come with it by default, anyone can feel it, and it has obviously nothing to do with a belief whatsoever.
I mean, Cheeze, just drop the point. I know you like stretching discussions, but this is really getting absurd.

Arbre:

Love is an emotion any normal human can feel.
You don't have to put love to trials, according to scientific standards to verify its existence, since we come with it by default, anyone can feel it, and it has obviously nothing to do with a belief whatsoever.
I mean, Cheeze, just drop the point. I know you like stretching discussions, but this is really getting absurd.

Sorry, I agree with Cheeze; how can you deny something purely on the basis that it might not be there? Measure Love for me with your Science and THEN you can decide whether it exists or is some form of Belief.
You have an irrational belief system built around Science, so that just makes you another Theist. Science not only has been proven wrong on occasions (Brontosaurus, Cryptozoology, Even Gravity), has started a lot of wars and still can't explain certain things; even things it's made up itself.

Why do Supercooled Liquids display Anti-Gravity?

Or are you gonna use the old "Can God create a rock so massive that he can't lift it?"?

Arbre:

Ultrajoe:

Arbre:
I don't recall the E3 being a christian meeting.

you shouldn't, because if you'd read the damn article he wasn't saying these things at E3...

if you suckle the medias teat like a baby, i'm going to treat you like a child.

Well first I like teats.
Secondly, my point is that since the E3 is not supposed to be a christian convention of any sort, there's that governor guy who's basically going to be talking to a vast room full of people already listed on that charter flight to Hell, because they don't share his beliefs. Cool eh?
I think the E3 staff could have picked a better figure rather that this fuckhead. But hey! his hairdo is top class.

So you think because this man has beliefs and thoughts other than those concerned with gaming he is ineligible to speak at E3? In a completely unrelated matter he speaks on a completely different issue and now he's a fuckhead? It is possible (stay with me here) that at E3, the man will give a perfectly reasonable speech and not mention faith at all? he might *gasp* have interests other than those he's suddenly being berated for!

Or he might speak like a moose and waste all of our time, in either case calling the man a fuckhead is a little premature.

And don't dodge my initial comment, you obviously jumped into this thread ready to lay about with your opinions before actually reading the article itself, don't judge a thread by its cover so you can play crusader.

The_root_of_all_evil:

Arbre:

Love is an emotion any normal human can feel.
You don't have to put love to trials, according to scientific standards to verify its existence, since we come with it by default, anyone can feel it, and it has obviously nothing to do with a belief whatsoever.
I mean, Cheeze, just drop the point. I know you like stretching discussions, but this is really getting absurd.

Sorry, I agree with Cheeze; how can you deny something purely on the basis that it might not be there?

Because I want proof that it's there. Don't you get it?
Otherwise, I could claim any stupid thing, even stuff you wouldn't like to hear about your family for example, then claim I'm right, after getting sure that you cannot observe it and voila.

Measure Love for me with your Science and THEN you can decide whether it exists or is some form of Belief.

I don't have to put love under the scrutiny of science to show that it exists.
Everyone can feel love, just as much as nearly everyone can feel pain, even if those two things are slightly different. We are born with them (of course, there are some defects here and there, but that's not the point).

You have an irrational belief system built around Science, so that just makes you another Theist.

No, I think you don't really understand what science is about.

Science not only has been proven wrong on occasions (Brontosaurus, Cryptozoology, Even Gravity), has started a lot of wars and still can't explain certain things; even things it's made up itself.

And?

Why do Supercooled Liquids display Anti-Gravity?

Why is our genotype so close to that of chimps?

Or are you gonna use the old "Can God create a rock so massive that he can't lift it?"?

My back hurts, so he won't have to push himself too hard.

Ultrajoe:
So you think because this man has beliefs and thoughts other than those concerned with gaming he is ineligible to speak at E3? In a completely unrelated matter he speaks on a completely different issue and now he's a fuckhead?

The "fuckhead" comment was formulated in regards to his absurd belief of eternal torment for anyone who doesn't agree with him and millions of other same minded people.
Allow me to suggest a slight modification:
A million fuckheads.
Yes, much better. :)

It is possible (stay with me here) that at E3, the man will give a perfectly reasonable speech and not mention faith at all? he might *gasp* have interests other than those he's suddenly being berated for!

It's also possible that someone with more insightful things to say about games could have been chosen for the event.
Not to say that the likes of him have repeatedly proven to be capable of the most dumbfounding conservative and ignorant comments regarding video games, so my hopes are not high, and at best, you can expect the most random and useless speech ever.

Arbre:

The_root_of_all_evil:

Sorry, I agree with Cheeze; how can you deny something purely on the basis that it might not be there?

Because I want proof that it's there. Don't you get it?

Like Electrons? Evolution? Black Holes? The Air?

Otherwise, I could claim any stupid thing, even stuff you wouldn't like to hear about your family for example, then claim I'm right, after getting sure that you cannot observe it and voila.

Yesssss...that's what Freedom of Expression is all about. Claim something about my family in public though, and you'd better make sure you can back it up.
That's called Flaming.

Measure Love for me with your Science and THEN you can decide whether it exists or is some form of Belief.

I don't have to put love under the scrutiny of science to show that it exists.
Everyone can feel love, just as much as nearly everyone can feel pain, even if those two things are slightly different. We are born with them (of course, there are some defects here and there, but that's not the point).

But I want proof that it's there. Don't you get it? Subjective sensations are not an Objective proof.

You have an irrational belief system built around Science, so that just makes you another Theist.

No, I think you don't really understand what science is about.

Yes, Science is "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world."

Which doesn't include love.

Science not only has been proven wrong on occasions (Brontosaurus, Cryptozoology, Even Gravity), has started a lot of wars and still can't explain certain things; even things it's made up itself.

And?

And therefore is still a theoreum, and as at fault as any theism.

Why do Supercooled Liquids display Anti-Gravity?

Why is our genotype so close to that of chimps?

Well, because the genotype is a measurement of genetic typing that bases itself on the genetic characteristics passed on from the parent organism to the child organism; it would be a radical departure from basic measurements if a creature that resembles us in gait, reproduction, genus, and other significant measurements (including mental states like cruelty and cannibalism) was not close to Homo Sapien. Don't see what that's got to do with anything though, given the genotype is a measurement based on the characteristics of finding similarities between organisms that resemble one another.

Or are you gonna use the old "Can God create a rock so massive that he can't lift it?"?

My back hurts, so he won't have to push himself too hard.

Uhuh...right.

Well, if you could spend less time spamming, and putting more thoughts into your posts, maybe we could get somewhere.
But I think I'll leave it there.

Ultrajoe:

So you think because this man has beliefs and thoughts other than those concerned with gaming he is ineligible to speak at E3? In a completely unrelated matter he speaks on a completely different issue and now he's a fuckhead? It is possible (stay with me here) that at E3, the man will give a perfectly reasonable speech and not mention faith at all? he might *gasp* have interests other than those he's suddenly being berated for!

This is actually a complex question. At what point do a person's outside beliefs disqualify them from participating in an activity not necessarily related to that belief?

In other words: I'm sure the head of NAMBLA enjoys many things besides boy love, on many other continents no less. Yet, do you want him speaking at your function? Where's the line?

Arbre:

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Arbre:

What is there to subject to science about love?

What is there to subject to science about religious belief?

Ah, Jesuit dodging now. Fine.
Love is an emotion any normal human can feel.
You don't have to put love to trials, according to scientific standards to verify its existence, since we come with it by default, anyone can feel it, and it has obviously nothing to do with a belief whatsoever.
I mean, Cheeze, just drop the point. I know you like stretching discussions, but this is really getting absurd.

You think it's getting absurd because you keep misunderstanding me because you keep ignoring what I'm writing. I started all this off with 'how do you know your parents love you'. You keep confusing me asking you to prove love itself exists as opposed to a specific instance of love outside our own heads.

Can't that be put to "scientific standards to verify its existence"? Whether a person's parent loves them is a fact in the world, is it not? If you think a fact in the world like 'god exists' must be subjected to that kind of rigor, do you so subject all the facts you hold as true, that you base your life around, to that specific kind of scrutiny?

Don't you believe that someone loves you? If we are supposed to back up our beliefs with a test for validity of the theory they rest on, then have you done so with all your beliefs about who loves you? If not, why are you allowed to espouse a fact that hasn't been subjected to scientific validation yet when someone else espouses a fact you require them to have done what you are not doing yourself?

In short: if a belief in god must be subjected to "scientific standards to verify its existence" then why shouldn't all beliefs be similarly treated?

AAARGH! WGAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!!!

Too many quote towers, too much debate over the incorrect point. The point is: his holy supreme majesty, reverend Selfrighteousbastardness the third, governor of Texas, declared that most of us are going to hell. While the idea of hell does not upset me, as long as there's plenty of good conversation, I want your opinions ON THE TOPIC.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here