The same could be said of the Greek and Roman gods. (And every other
religion as well.)

Are they all real, too?

wouldn't be worth worshipping. It's too much for us to even understand.

From http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Faith

faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.

Accepting just any statement if it can't be disproven makes no sense.

If I say that my pet rabbit designed my car, then I must be able to
prove it as opposed to disproving it.

This illogic is common amongst your so-called "flock".

Then how do you know its even there ??

More proof:

<http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.php>

Even so, it still doesn't prove that he is the son of a God, nor does
it even prove his existence.

Look up the definition of faith. I have faith that the sky wont fall
tomorrow, but I can't prove it! :)

*anyway*... I'm agnostic, and I dont actually have a lot of faith in
anything :)

You dont.

not a good example
seeing there is not a physical "sky"
it cant fall

what does that have to do with the price of tea in china?

There are gullible people in every era. You are one that just happens to
be in this era.

Actually the religious nutters have a ready built argument for that one
- although only in certain English translations. Unfortunately none of
the Greek texts actually support that translation except in a wildly
metaphoric way.

Then writings about Pagan or Hindu Gods are true, too, right along with
all of the other claims by all the other religions (simply because they
WERE written about, too, right) ??

Then it must not matter if you have it.

Its physical, just not solid and its already fallen as much as it can
fall, because there's no vacuum enough below it.

?????

really the sky is a physical thing
i think not
if it was you could touch it
go bac to 3rd grade science and read a book
whew
>

Its already as low as it can go.

You might at well say that you have faith that sand on a beach won't
fall down any lower than it is.

Where else would it fall to ?? You can't expect to fill the pews like
this.

Faith in invisible friends is for the weak, the stupid and the deluded.
If you can think for yourself, if you have the slightest understanding
of the reality of the human condition, you don't need an invisible
friend to believe in because you can believe in yourself.

Religion is the bane of human existence.

Well, I believe in Santa. And he's every bit as real as your doG.

I agree, but my opinio is just that... mine. I'm quite happy for people
to believe/have faith in whatever they want, so long as it doesn't get
in the way of MY right to believe in what *I* want too.

That's the problem, though. The evidence shows that religious nuts in
this world (and anyone who believes in invisible friends is a religious
nutcase), whether they're Muslims flying planes into buildings, fundie
Xians murdering abortion doctors, Mormons at the Mountain Meadows
Massacre or Catholic priests raping altar boys, are NOT content to
exercise their religion without getting in the way of the rights of
others.

In fact, the evidence is clear - most of them believe that a part of
exercising their religion is indeed, getting in the way of the rights of
others.

I was just pointing out that "faith" does not need "proof" by definition.
By the way, if you live in a house do you have "proof" there was a
designer, contractor or workers, even though you didn't see them build
it? You would probably say "Of course, look here is my house. That is
proof enough." Wouldn't the same hold true for God?

No, because I know by experience in life that houses don't erect
themselves. It's quantifiable and provable. It's rational and requires
no leap of faith. Housing is a construct of humans, not any invisible
friend because if it wasn't, we'd all still be sleeping outside.

Now, when your doG shows up, shakes hands, hands me a beer and says
"Hey, y'all want the tour?" I might have reason to believe. But then she
wouldn't be an invisible friend any more, would she?

to exercise they're personal "rights" on everyone else. Just look
around, "I'm gay you can't tell me not teach preschool", "I'm a crack
dealer, I don't bother anyone who doesn't want crack", "I'm a pop
singer, you can't tell me I can't love to little boys" ;)
They are a part of the "It's all relative" religion.

bang" theory, think about this; take a pocket watch smash it with a
hammer. Now put it in a bag and shake it. Did all of the millions of
pieces come together to create a working pocket watch?

This is completely ludicrous.

let's go point by point:

1. Why should gay people NOT teach preschool, as long as they keep their
sexuality out of it? A teacher's sexuality has no place in the classroom
and I hasten to remind you, ALL of the publicized teacher-student sexual
liaisons we've heard so much about have been between HETEROSEXUALS! So
your argument in this case is specious.

2. Crack is illegal in this country. Again, totally specious argument,
though I am in favor of the legalization of all drugs.

3. Pedophilia is illegal. Again, a specious argument.

0 for three, ya nutcase.

What you're unwilling to admit, is that you religious nutcases are not
content to practice your religion in an honorable but private way. You
believe that anyone who does not believe as you do, should be killed.
You can pretty it up with semantics all you want but that is the one
basic tenet of every religion on earth except buddhism: that the
infidels should be slayed.

You believe that as much as you believe in Revelation. So quit with the
sanctimonious bullshit and admit the truth.

Valid points, but at the same time we all have to live in this global
society, and that requires some level of tolerance for those who may
emphatically believe something you dont believe in.

I dont think that was the point.

He was right in that if everyone is allowed to express THEIR rights,
we'd be in a total mess. Your personal religion maybe abhorrent, or even
illegal, but to you personally it may not seem so. Laws differ from
country to country - so does morality, and the latter is a big part of
all religions.

As long as they keep it to themselves, I really don't give a rat's ass
what they do. But the minute they start demanding others live and
believe as they do, they've crossed a line.

The explain to me why:

Muslims fly aircraft into buildings and blow up thousands of people.

Fundies murder physicians who perform abortions.

Catholic priests rape altar boys.

You call that morality? You have an interesting definition of morality.

They pay a lot of LIP SERVICE to "morality," but when you get down to
where the bear shits in the buckwheat, they use their so-called morality
as a weapon, while not following their stated morality in their own
lives.

Hypocrisy, party of millions?

Yes.

But dont get me wrong, I can't imagine how AT ALL people can justify
these actions, but they do, and the only way I can get my head around it
is if I imagine they have different ideas of what "morality" is. Doesn't
mean I believe that we should let these people do these things either.
But there's the problems - that's my belief system :)

You have just proven my 3 points ya dipshit! LOL! Why don't you practice
you're relativism in a private way? Why should I be tolerant of seeing
"gays on parade" or something else that I don't agree with? Because YOU
are okay with it?? What a load of garbage. You are doing the EXACT same
thing that you are bitchin' about the "religious nuts" are doing. This
is rich. LOL.

I agree. But then that's the point of this argument isn't it? Where does
YOUR idea of "the right thing to do" cross someone elses line?

Right...but the point I'm trying to make is that people have the right
to believe whatever they like, as long as they don't infringe on the
rights of others. the examples I've given are those where indeed,
religious nutjobs have infringed on the rights of others. Whether that's
their morality is not the point...it's that their actions have taken
them out of the realm of peaceful religious person and into the realm of
religious nutcase who should be stopped.

I have no issue with people believing, praying, whatever. When the
belief and prayer turns into terrorism, rape and murder, it's no longer
moral, and you don't have to be religious to know what's right and
wrong.

That is precisely what I asked. Observe:

The logic is consistent with your example. Any discrepancies you
perceive are because of your lack of comprehension, most likely due to
the irrational preconceptions typical of your set of beliefs.


Furthermore, the very same illogical reasoning you try to pin on one
group has been clearly demonstrated by the other, in this very thread:

TheUnknownOne wrote:

Either way, whether you belief in God or not, you should carefully
examine all of your preconceptions /before/ you die, because afterwards
will clearly be too late.

--
Ben M.

Because gays do nothing to harm you. You don't have to look at them. If
they're on parade, you can go to the ball game or you can go to church.

*I* don't agree with your religious beliefs, but I'm not going to demand
that you be discriminated against in the workplace (which is what YOU
are advocating in reference to gay people). There is the difference,
Oral.

In a society built on law instead of religious dogma, you are enjoined
to tolerate that which you don't like, but doesn't materially affect
you. If you want a society where gays and atheists are persecuted, go
buy an island and set yourself up as President-For-Life.

Gay people do not force you to be gay. They don't force you to teach
tolerance to your children. And as long as they keep their sexuality to
themselves in their work environment (and this should apply to all), who
cares what they do away from work?

Personally, I think you better have a look in your closet, man, I think
you might be hiding in there.

The difference is not that you don't want to be tolerant of gays, you
want it to be OK to PERSECUTE them. If you can't see that difference,
then you're too stupid to continue the conversation with.

Don't know, don't care. Not my problem.

You really are reaching. You're asking people to take the simplest of
situations and make huge extrapolations, in order to suit your argument,
but it's completely ludicrous to expect that.

Truthfully, you don't have any more idea about how "all this" came to be
than I do. If you want to believe in your invisible friend, that's fine,
knock yourself out.

I just don't care enough to think I can convince you, as long as you
keep your religious bullshit to yourself and don't try to force me to
live like you do. If you do try, expect a fight. I've had enough of
sanctimonious assholes trying to force me to be like them.

Why would somebody you choose to ignore want to talk to you? If you
really want to talk to God, you need to get up and look for Him.

Bingo. That's faith: the personal evidence of things not seen.

--
Ben M.

Whoa there partner, I NEVER said anything about persecuting them. My
point is why do the "religious nuts", as you have put it, need to bend
over backwards to see it everyone else's way? Shouldn't you try and
respect the "nuts" point of view. Also, I have a problem with you
lumping everyone who has any religious belief into a group of terrorists
or abortionist doctor killers. Are there terrorists and murderers who
say that they are doing it for God or Allah? Sure there are, but aren't
there just as many who claim no religion? You better believe it.

Prove it or STFU.

I'm not trying to force you into believing anything, I just thought that
maybe you would like to hear another side to an argument, aren't you the
one saying that everyone should respect everyone else's point of view?
But aren't you trying to force me into believing something by saying
"religous nuts", calling it "bullshit" and so on?
By the way I never said I was a Christian, Muslim or of any other
religion, I'm just smart enough to know that I don't have all the
answers, all I can give you is my opinion.

You really have got to be kidding me. Just look at the news, read the
paper, listen to the radio.

If you believe such gross generalisations are fair, then in the same
manner: Americans murder their neighbours; Germans like to kill Jews;
doctors kill old ladies; and judges are owned by organised crime.

Despite the actions of the few, the reality is that: Americans strive to
be neighbourly; Germans are heavy with the guilt of their ancestors;
doctors do their best to treat everybody who walks through their doors;
and judges are just.

The actions of the few rarely reflect the reality of the many.

--
Ben M.

Denying a gay person a job because of your religious beliefs is
persecution. So you're advocating persecution.

They don't have to "see it" any way other than what they want to. But
when they go beyond what affects them, they've crossed a line. A gay
person, living their lives and doing their jobs and even having butt-
in the privacy of their own home, or even in a bath house with a total
stranger, does NOT affect you in any way, any more than my performing
cunnilingus on my partner affects you in any way.

Assuming that was a question, only if it's the POV doesn't go into the
realm of discrimination and persecution (which are, for all intents and
purposes, the same thing)

Anyone with religious beliefs is automatically, to some extent, an
irrational person, because rational people don't believe in invisible
friends in the sky.

Furthermore, show me some evidence that people without the motive of
religious zeal have done these things. I can give you a list:

Osama - zealot.

Al Zarqawi - zealot.

Paul Hill - zealot.

Eric Robert Rudolph - zealot.

If you want ME to believe you, you're going to have to name some names.
So far you've advocated keeping gay people from teaching in preschools
(and yes, that is persecution) , even if they're completely professional
about it, so forgive me if I have a hard time taking you seriously.

Furthermore, you've ignored the issue I raised about heterosexuals (of
which I am one) being responsible for each and every one of the
well-publicized teacher-student scandals in recent years. So now you
think heterosexual men and women shouldn't teach high school?

I love it when nutjobs talk out of both sides of their mouths.

Obviously we're not getting anywhere. Listen, I will not and can't force
you to think a certain way, just like you can't and shouldn't force your
beliefs or opnions on anyone else. BTW, why do you use the name "Terri
Schiavo's Feeding Tube"? Maybe making an opnion or belief?

Doing my best to be as offensive to fundies as possible. They deserve
it.

I'm proud of you! You referred to them as "fundies" not "nuts"!
Baby-steps. ;)

You claim fundies persecute gays for their views, and yet you persecute
fundies for their views. You deserve exactly what you give.

--
Ben M.

I'm not saying that I should be able to disprove something when I say
something is unfalsifiable,
I'm saying that a statement which claims to make an objective statement
about the external world
is unfalsifiable when it cannot be proven or disproven.
In this case, the statement is meaningless if it claims to make an objective
statement about the external world.
You just disregard it since there is no way of proving or disproving it. As
in the statement is there such a thing as the "Word of God".
There is no way of proving or disproving this claim. Therefore, unless you
like to believe in things which you can never
possibly verify you must suspend taking any position for or against it and
simply disregard it as an objective claim about the world we
live in.. Insane people do it all the time when they claim they see or hear
things which do not exist in the objective world, but really just
appear to be real in their own private subjective world. Now am I going to
believe in the delusional man's assertions on faith or should
I suspend belief concerning his delusional assertions?