Trek's View of Religion

[Mr Troi]

I remember back in 2004 I was working in a bank and I became friendly with one of our regular customers. She was a very pleasant and a very sincere person. One day she told me that her daughter was dying of cancer and that what was keeping her going was her religous belief. When you disparage people who are religous you are being insensitive, unkind and arrogant.
In Article 10 of The Charter Of Fundamental Rights Of The European Union European citizens have the freedom of thought, conscience and religion. In the US you have your First Amendment. A person has a right to believe in a religion and should not be disrespected for it.

 

[Saquist]

I remember back in 2004 I was working in a bank and I became friendly with one of our regular customers. She was a very pleasant and a very sincere person. One day she told me that her daughter was dying of cancer and that what was keeping her going was her religous belief. When you disparage people who are religous you are being insensitive, unkind and arrogant.
In Article 10 of The Charter Of Fundamental Rights Of The European Union European citizens have the freedom of thought, conscience and religion. In the US you have your First Amendment. A person has a right to believe in a religion and should not be disrespected for it.

Disparage is a very, very good word to use.
We cannot be hypocritical. We can't disparage other's lack of belief either. We must find a way to coexist.

 

[3D Master]

No, logically we can examine how and where morals come from, and we know they don't come from any non-existent gods. They come from us. Any gods created would thus be enforcing any morals we already have.

That's fascinating. I would be very interested in seeing the research and documentation that proves where morals come from. You say that we can examine how and where they come from, and we know that they don't come from non-existent gods. So where is the evidence that morals come from where you claim they come from?

You can start by looking around you, and examining the claims of religious folks saying their morals come from god, their religion, their holy book. You examine the holy book, the religion and what is said about that god, and you find their morals are NOTHING like those the book, the god, the religion says they are.

Invariably, the morals in the book, from the god, and the religion is slaughter everyone who doesn't believe exactly like you, slaughter those, slaughter that, fight that, send another group to hell for eternal torment, persecute some others, don't do this, don't do that.

You then examine the morals of the person, and you find just about the exact opposite. Don't kill people who are different that you, tolerate them, let them live, give the other group equal freedom, roll eyes at backward notions of gender, and on, and on, and on.

We thus, can already tell from present day people, that morals come from how someone grew up, what their parents taught them, which books, fiction and non-fiction they read, what school they went to, the teachers they admired, friends and family, the society they live in. Their religion has nothing to do with it. No, afterwards, they attribute their morals to their god, the book, and the religion, picking and choosing from their book, or rewriting it in their head altogether.

Thus from present day examination, you can already tell, that morals do not come from the gods; it's the other way around, you project your own morals onto your gods.

In the past it can be done quite easily as well. Archeology, anthropology, especially interesting during the creation of new religions. They usually come after, often well-after, the destruction of older religions. The old religions and their priests in some way shape or form failed, couldn't keep up with the time, either unable to stop disasters, or can't keep up with changing attitudes. It implodes, big civil war, lots of destruction. And some time later a new religion forms to take the place of the old one, fitting the new realities either of the environment or the attitudes of the people.

Anyone who studies history even marginally can see this pattern happening multiple times over in different places around the world.

I remember back in 2004 I was working in a bank and I became friendly with one of our regular customers. She was a very pleasant and a very sincere person. One day she told me that her daughter was dying of cancer and that what was keeping her going was her religous belief. When you disparage people who are religous you are being insensitive, unkind and arrogant.
In Article 10 of The Charter Of Fundamental Rights Of The European Union European citizens have the freedom of thought, conscience and religion. In the US you have your First Amendment. A person has a right to believe in a religion and should not be disrespected for it.

Yes, because you know, speaking the truth is insensitive, unkind and arrogant these days. When someone is scared he has bad luck because he saw a black cat and stays inside inside home, we can't say that he's a superstition fool, because it might be too disrespectful! My god, the horror of the truth!

Meanwhile, the guy who is scared of the black cat, the guy who worships the flying spaghetti monster, Yawheh, Allah, whatever, get to spend their time claiming those who do not believe in any of that crap and say so as disrespectful, evil, devil-worshipers, get ostracized, screwed with, called names, etc. etc.

Just because you have the right to believe everything you see fit, doesn't mean others can't be vocally critical of your beliefs. There's also that thing about freedom to speak your opinion, it rather applies also to those who do not believe anything.

 

[Mr Troi]

I wasn't talking about a person who saw a black cat or who worshipped a spaghetti monster. What is the truth? Do you know?
My point is that people try to cope with their lives in different ways. Life can be very painful and very cruel. In my experience religion can help people so I truly do believe that trashing a person's belief can be insensitive and unkind.
I am an atheist, we probably have much in common, but I disagree with how you have chosen to convey your opinion. It is very cliched. It is also very undignified. As a good citizen you should be respectful of other people's rights. By all means disagree with them and debate with them but do it in a way that doesn't make you come across as arrogant and very, very young.

 

[stj]

Okay fine. But at least show them some respect. Because for most people, that's all they had. For example, my grandmother was a Holocast survivor. She told me that her faith in God was the only thing that kept her going. I'm not saying you have to believe, but show them at least some respect.

I'd recommend kindness instead.

Religious people almost invariably think that unbelievers are evil, period. Saying someone is superstitious is nothing by comparison.

Besides, don't you realize that if you are supposed to respect the Jews' right to believe in their religion, you should respect the Christians' right to theirs? Which includes respecting Christians taking seriously the New Testament story of the Jews accepting blood guilt for the murder of Christ on themselves and their posterity. I hope you don't actually respect that. You're actually arguing for respecting the religion you approve of. If you say something about religion in general, that you would think silly if you said about astrology or Scientology, you're just wrong.

 

[DevilEyes]

Okay fine. But at least show them some respect. Because for most people, that's all they had. For example, my grandmother was a Holocast survivor. She told me that her faith in God was the only thing that kept her going. I'm not saying you have to believe, but show them at least some respect.

I'd recommend kindness instead.

Religious people almost invariably think that unbelievers are evil, period. Saying someone is superstitious is nothing by comparison.

Besides, don't you realize that if you are supposed to respect the Jews' right to believe in their religion, you should respect the Christians' right to theirs? Which includes respecting Christians taking seriously the New Testament story of the Jews accepting blood guilt for the murder of Christ on themselves and their posterity. I hope you don't actually respect that. You're actually arguing for respecting the religion you approve of. If you say something about religion in general, that you would think silly if you said about astrology or Scientology, you're just wrong.

Um... what?

You are seriously claiming that it's a fact that New Testament says that Jews have "blood guilt" for the death of Jesus, or that Christians in general interpret it that way?

Is this what you're referring to?

24When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it. 25Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.

This? This only says that the crowd outside Pilate's palace were willing to accept the responsibility for Jesus's death, in order to convince Pilate to have him executed. So, the crowd were your typical lynch crowd, bloodthirsty - not incredibly surprising in a crowd that has assembled to basically decide who lives and who dies - while Pilate was a sissy who didn't care who he had executed as long as he could say it wasn't his responsibility, and as long it made the crowd happy.

Sure, I know that some Christians (as well as some people who weren't particularly religious but were happy to use anything for their antisemitic agenda) have claimed that Jews were collectively guilty for the death of Jesus... but this particular interpretation has always struck me as completely idiotic, since it's illogical and contradictory in itself - due to the fact that, you know, Jesus was Jewish, his mother - the second most worshipped figure in Christianity - was Jewish, his disciples were Jewish, people who wrote the Gospels were Jewish... (The above mentioned Gospel of Matthew actually starts with a lengthy genealogy of Jesus, making him a descendant of King David through Joseph (!), and tends to emphasize the ways in which Jesus fulfilled old Jewish prophecies.) And now this religion founded by Jews, based on the teachings of a Jew, and on older religious traditions of the Jewish people, is supposed to be anti-Jewish?

 

[3D Master]

I wasn't talking about a person who saw a black cat or who worshipped a spaghetti monster. What is the truth? Do you know?
My point is that people try to cope with their lives in different ways. Life can be very painful and very cruel. In my experience religion can help people so I truly do believe that trashing a person's belief can be insensitive and unkind.
I am an atheist, we probably have much in common, but I disagree with how you have chosen to convey your opinion. It is very cliched. It is also very undignified. As a good citizen you should be respectful of other people's rights. By all means disagree with them and debate with them but do it in a way that doesn't make you come across as arrogant and very, very young.

If you can't "trash" a person's belief, you can't debate with them. Belief in an imaginary god is a superstition, an illusion; and there's no way to say that, without saying it. If you're not allowed to say this opinion, it a. attacks my right of free speech, b. my opinions on how I see things, and c. it ends any and all debate.

Finally, once again, speaking out against someone's beliefs and speaking your opinion about them, is not disrespectful of their rights. Nowhere, have I ever even once, advocating attacking their rights, disrespecting them, banning them, or otherwise diminish their rights to believe in whatever they wish to believe.

 

[Penta]

Holy hell, this thread's still going? I lost any idea of where it had anything to do with Trek a few pages ago...

 

[CoveTom]

My final comment here is to just take note of how often those in the anti-religion camp are using phrases like "almost invariably" when discussing religion. I'd be curious to see proof of such claims...

Beyond that, I have no desire to continue to participate in this thread any longer. It has long since stopped being a discussion of anything to do with Trek and, with all due respect to my fellow TrekBBSers, I feel no need to justify or debate my religious beliefs here. If I wanted to do that, I would have requested access to TNZ.

 

[Deckerd]

You mustn't mention TNZ in a religious thread.

Oh damn.

 

[Saquist]

I wasn't talking about a person who saw a black cat or who worshipped a spaghetti monster. What is the truth? Do you know?
My point is that people try to cope with their lives in different ways. Life can be very painful and very cruel. In my experience religion can help people so I truly do believe that trashing a person's belief can be insensitive and unkind.
I am an atheist, we probably have much in common, but I disagree with how you have chosen to convey your opinion. It is very cliched. It is also very undignified. As a good citizen you should be respectful of other people's rights. By all means disagree with them and debate with them but do it in a way that doesn't make you come across as arrogant and very, very young.

It's a fine line to be sure.

I'd recommend kindness instead.

That is the one part that is missing from his post.
I've been guilty of as much being to literal. I see his perspective though but the words he chooses are inherently biased. If he argued his position from fact alone instead of betraying his contempt...

I don't know, people might listen.

Religious people almost invariably think that unbelievers are evil, period. Saying someone is superstitious is nothing by comparison.

It's true.




-----

Um... what?

You are seriously claiming that it's a fact that New Testament says that Jews have "blood guilt" for the death of Jesus, or that Christians in general interpret it that way?

Is this what you're referring to?

24When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it. 25Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.

This? This only says that the crowd outside Pilate's palace were willing to accept the responsibility for Jesus's death, in order to convince Pilate to have him executed. So, the crowd were your typical lynch crowd, bloodthirsty - not incredibly surprising in a crowd that has assembled to basically decide who lives and who dies - while Pilate was a sissy who didn't care who he had executed as long as he could say it wasn't his responsibility, and as long it made the crowd happy.

Sure, I know that some Christians (as well as some people who weren't particularly religious but were happy to use anything for their antisemitic agenda) have claimed that Jews were collectively guilty for the death of Jesus... but this particular interpretation has always struck me as completely idiotic, since it's illogical and contradictory in itself - due to the fact that, you know, Jesus was Jewish, his mother - the second most worshipped figure in Christianity - was Jewish, his disciples were Jewish, people who wrote the Gospels were Jewish... (The above mentioned Gospel of Matthew actually starts with a lengthy genealogy of Jesus, making him a descendant of King David through Joseph (!), and tends to emphasize the ways in which Jesus fulfilled old Jewish prophecies.) And now this religion founded by Jews, based on the teachings of a Jew, and on older religious traditions of the Jewish people, is supposed to be anti-Jewish?

According to scripture God dissolved the covenant with the Jews not just because of the Death of Jesus Christ but because of their constant disloyalty with worshiping other gods which is why they were in Roman captivity in the first place.

But all Jews didn't kill Jesus...some..many of the people were on his side. It was the Sanhedrin that when against the law by having night secession to charge Jesus (because they wanted to do so away from public view).

Ironically it was the Romans that had him put to death. (That would be Ironic because many follow under Roman Catholicism to day as Christians.)

Nonetheless...not all Jews are responsible and apparently God didn't hold all Jews responsible even though the covenant was broken.

 

[DevilEyes]

I'd recommend kindness instead.

Not really my quote but Mr Troi's (not that I disagree with the sentiment, although probably wouldn't use those words). This kind of thing happens with multi-quoting.

 

[Saquist]

My apologies...its difficult with this very odd system of multiquoting.

 

[lawman]

We can make logical theories but the presence of logic does not determine a truthful theory.

Saquist, your posts are chock full of paralogia, and this is just the first example among many. You seem to be dismissing the relevance of logic here. While logic alone isn't a sufficient characteristic of a truthful "theory" (using the term more expansively than the scientific sense for the moment, multiple hypotheses can be equally logical), it is a necessary characteristic. Any proposed explanation for a phenomenon that lacks logic de facto fails.

I didn't ask you prove a negative.
And ...actually the burden of proof is on the accusation.
If you make an accusation you must support it with evidence other wise there is no case, judicially.

Sure you did... you asked him to prove that religion wasn't the source of morality. The best one can actually do is point to more plausible alternative sources... which I did, BTW, and which you ignored.

And there's no "accusation" being made here, nor are we in a judicial proceeding. In a logical debate, the one making an assertion is responsible for the burden of proof, and the assertion here was that religions are the source of morality. What evidence do you have to support that?

Scientifically:
The ramifications of that which we cannot observe and collect empirical data from (including history) is outside scientific jurisdiction. If there is no historical evidence then to prove a claim...not to merely support it, then just like evidence that supports a claim, it is merely speculation and bears no truth other than it's presence and discovery. ... It is acceptable that science views proof (not support) of any assertion as the final decision on truth.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here, except that you apparently don't understand the scientific method. Science doesn't deal in matters of "proof" in any absolute sense; it does indeed weigh how much evidence "supports" a proposition, and such evidence is easily distinguishable from "speculation." Science only ever reaches provisional truths, based on the best available information; unlike religions, it makes no claims of absolute Truth.

There is no way to confirm or deny the existence of what ever happened in the time of the ancients and the inability to "prove" that they happened or that God or gods don't exist is not therefore proven by default.

If there's no evidence to "prove" that gods do exist, as in fact there isn't, then the logical and scientific conclusion (unless and until new evidence is adduced) is that they don't.

But the powerful and undeniable realization is... that even if you can't prove it or even support it...It doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Actually, that's exactly what it means. If there's no evidence to support a proposition, it is eminently reasonable to conclude that the proposition is false.

(That's the whole point of the "flying spaghetti monster" concept in the first place... and the notion that any individual may believe such a thing to be true despite the absence of evidence does not itself constitute evidence.)

According to The New Encyclopædia Britannica~ says that “as far as scholars have discovered, there has never existed any people, anywhere, at any time, who were not in some sense religious.”

I'd really like a link or a direct citation for that. If it's quoted accurately, then a lot of people have a bone to pick with the editors of the Britannica and/or the "scholars" they reference. Responsible scholars don't frame things in such absolute terms (anyone, anywhere, any time?), because it makes it ridiculously easy to demonstrate how the claim simply isn't true. (And the use of weasel words like "in some sense" doesn't change that. Sorry, but millions of people here and now are not in any sense religious, so the statement collapses even before we examine earlier cultures... where it also doesn't hold up, FWIW.)

Archaeology/anthropology evidence must be used in the stead of writing to determine prehistoric beliefs and practices...

On the contrary, you've supported my point even if you've discouraged my conservative approach but I do admire your zeal for the facts. Carry on.

No, all he did was point out (contrary to your assertion) that we can look to other sources of evidence than "history" about the practices of preliterate societies, and thus determine that many neolithic cultures did engage in practices that appear religious. This helps us date the emergence of religion. It does not even remotely suggest that that emergence predates the emergence of morality.

Moving on...

I remember back in 2004 I was working in a bank and I became friendly with one of our regular customers. She was a very pleasant and a very sincere person. One day she told me that her daughter was dying of cancer and that what was keeping her going was her religous belief. When you disparage people who are religous you are being insensitive, unkind and arrogant.
In Article 10 of The Charter Of Fundamental Rights Of The European Union European citizens have the freedom of thought, conscience and religion. In the US you have your First Amendment. A person has a right to believe in a religion and should not be disrespected for it.

Freedom of thought, expression and religion is certainly important, but it doesn't say anything about anyone's thoughts deserving "respect."

That's not to say there isn't a time and place for tact. Obviously, if someone is suffering and finding comfort where they may, it's inconsiderate to insert yourself into their personal affairs just for the sake of debate.

(On the other hand, the guy who stands on a corner of State Street with a bullhorn five days a week telling passersby that unless they embrace his strict version of Christianity they're damned to eternal torture, isn't especially tactful and considerate, either. By and large, it seems to be believers who proselytize aggressively, not nonbelievers.)

It's a fine dividing line. If a sick woman or her mother is merely sharing her pain, it's entirely appropriate to keep your skepticism to yourself. OTOH, if she invites you to pray with her, it's also entirely appropriate to say "sorry, I'm not a believer," and if questioned on the matter to explain why. (Politely, of course: there's still no need to be tactless. But disagreement is not equivalent to discourtesy, and free speech extends to both sides.)

You can start by looking around you, and examining the claims of religious folks saying their morals come from god, their religion, their holy book. You examine the holy book, the religion and what is said about that god, and you find their morals are NOTHING like those the book, the god, the religion says they are.

Indeed. The degree of cognitive dissonance believers can handle in this regard often staggers me: for instance, the people who insist that the U.S. Constitution is based on "Judeo-Christian principles," when in fact seven out of ten of the Ten Commandments would be blatantly unconstitutional (and the other three -- don't kill, don't steal, don't perjure -- are such moral commonplaces that they're in no way the province of any particular religion).

I wasn't talking about a person who saw a black cat or who worshipped a spaghetti monster.

No, you were talking about a person who worshiped a more conventional, socially approved religion. Do you think there's a meaningful distinction in terms of the truth value of the underlying belief, however? If so, why?

My point is that people try to cope with their lives in different ways. Life can be very painful and very cruel. In my experience religion can help people so I truly do believe that trashing a person's belief can be insensitive and unkind. I am an atheist, we probably have much in common, but I disagree with how you have chosen to convey your opinion.

There are all sorts of delusions that help people cope with life's travails. That doesn't change the fact that they're delusions. As noted, when and how one points this out is a matter of context, but the fact remains. If you're such a persons's psychotherapist, for instance, it's more important to guide him/her to the truth than to respect the delusion.

And in the case at hand, we're not talking about (or with) anyone who's suffering and emotionally vulnerable; we're talking in an online debate forum. If that's not an appropriate context for frank discussion, what is? I can't imagine a better place to point out that, since Star Trek is all about a future society that's advanced, rational, scientific and peaceable, while religion is primitive, irrational, unscientific, and violent, it's unreasonable to expect members of Trek's society to spare much respect for religion. (Although they do, obviously, still respect freedom of thought and expression.)

(Look, I brought things back on-topic! )

 

[Saquist]

Saquist, your posts are chock full of paralogia, and this is just the first example among many. You seem to be dismissing the relevance of logic here.

LOL, khay.

So you think every thing that is logical exist?
As long as the theory is "logical" it therefore must be true?

While logic alone isn't a sufficient characteristic of a truthful "theory" (using the term more expansively than the scientific sense for the moment, multiple hypotheses can be equally logical), it is a necessary characteristic. Any proposed explanation for a phenomenon that lacks logic de facto fails.

Ah, so you were just getting a "ribbing" in.
You knew exactly what I was saying.
Shame on you...

Sure you did... you asked him to prove that religion wasn't the source of morality.

False:

Let the record show SaQ's response to 3D's Master assertion was:

According to history, religion is as old the written language.
There is no intervening facts to counter this as to precede religion from the written language.

Logically we cannot state exactly when religion was created aside from what is written by the ancients.

You miss-remembered.

The best one can actually do is point to more plausible alternative sources... which I did, BTW, and which you ignored.

I didn't mean to bruise your ego but you did not address me in your post lawman and to my recollection this is the first we've ever addressed each other so...

Hello...

And there's no "accusation" being made here,

False:
The accusation was made by 3DMaster that religion is superstition. Consider it his opening statement, standing in direct contradiction with multiple definitions.

nor are we in a judicial proceeding. In a logical debate, the one making an assertion is responsible for the burden of proof, and the assertion here was that religions are the source of morality. What evidence do you have to support that?

For every task there is a proper tool.
For determining the validity of a theory one uses the the scientific method.
For determining the truth of an accusation one needs a "crucible to burn away the irrelevancies" a hearing if you will, a set of rules for impartiality and consensus. Since science views the use of testimony as the least reliable method of determining the truth of course the truth must be determined judicially.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here, except that you apparently don't understand the scientific method. Science doesn't deal in matters of "proof" in any absolute sense; it does indeed weigh how much evidence "supports" a proposition, and such evidence is easily distinguishable from "speculation." Science only ever reaches provisional truths, based on the best available information; unlike religions, it makes no claims of absolute Truth.

If you have no idea what I'm saying, then how did you come to your judgment without incite? Was your judgment predetermined?

If there's no evidence to "prove" that gods do exist, as in fact there isn't, then the logical and scientific conclusion (unless and until new evidence is adduced) is that they don't.

In fact there is evidence it's called testimony and it comes from many ancient cultures but science can't determine the veracity of testimony so science is impotent.

Actually, that's exactly what it means. If there's no evidence to support a proposition, it is eminently reasonable to conclude that the proposition is false.

Actually is another way of saying "in reality"
In reality, that is a false syllogism. No logical fallacy is reasonable. Objects don't suddenly come into existence just because we discover them. That would be highly egocentric.
You simply must mean something else entirely.

Further you said that it is impossible to prove a negative yet this statement has you coming to a negative judgment on the grounds of no proof.

A false syllogism...
A contradiction...

Perhaps it is my lack of understanding.
Care to explain?

(That's the whole point of the "flying spaghetti monster" concept in the first place... and the notion that any individual may believe such a thing to be true despite the absence of evidence does not itself constitute evidence.)

Oh I understand the point but it is nonetheless...
False:

Main Entry: 1ev·i·dence
Pronunciation: \ˈe-və-dən(t)s, -və-ˌden(t)s\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 a : an outward sign : indication b : something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter
2 : one who bears witness; especially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against his accomplices
— in evidence 1 : to be seen : conspicuous <trim lawns…are everywhere in evidence — American Guide Series: North Carolina>
2 : as evidence

Testimony is evidence.
Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.~Wiki & Babylon's Free Dictionary.

I'd really like a link or a direct citation for that. If it's quoted accurately, then a lot of people have a bone to pick with the editors of the Britannica and/or the "scholars" they reference. Responsible scholars don't frame things in such absolute terms (anyone, anywhere, any time?), because it makes it ridiculously easy to demonstrate how the claim simply isn't true. (And the use of weasel words like "in some sense" doesn't change that. Sorry, but millions of people here and now are not in any sense religious, so the statement collapses even before we examine earlier cultures... where it also doesn't hold up, FWIW.)

Not every source is on-line. Infact the good ones aren't.
I'll see if I can get it for you so you can wage your war against the source. You may have to hit the library to get your satisfaction though...

 

[Strider]

Ironically it was the Romans that had him put to death. (That would be Ironic because many follow under Roman Catholicism to day as Christians.)

Nonetheless...not all Jews are responsible and apparently God didn't hold all Jews responsible even though the covenant was broken.

If you mean ironic in the sense that Roman Catholics aren't aware of that connection and should be embarassed by it, then no not all that ironic. It's interesting, though. I mean, given Rome's prominence it's not surprising that the Chair of Peter would take up residence in the city at that time.

As for the matter of responsibility for Christ's death, the culprit you're looking for is me. Me and everyone else, actually. The participation of the Jews and Romans in the crucifixion of Christ is a matter of historical (and some theological) interest, but it has less to do with their Jewishness or their Roman-ness and more to do with their sinful human-ness. I can't ignore the likeliehood that if I had been in that crowd I would have most likely been clamoring for His blood as well. Because I'm weak, because I'm just as subject to the mob as everyone else. Jews are just as good and bad as everyone else, and equally in need of salvation.

 

[Deckerd]

I disagree. Religious nuts are ten a penny nowadays. Jesus would just be one of the many.

 

[3D Master]

Saquist, your posts are chock full of paralogia, and this is just the first example among many. You seem to be dismissing the relevance of logic here.

LOL, khay.

So you think every thing that is logical exist?
As long as the theory is "logical" it therefore must be true?

While logic alone isn't a sufficient characteristic of a truthful "theory" (using the term more expansively than the scientific sense for the moment, multiple hypotheses can be equally logical), it is a necessary characteristic. Any proposed explanation for a phenomenon that lacks logic de facto fails.

Ah, so you were just getting a "ribbing" in.
You knew exactly what I was saying.
Shame on you...

False:

Let the record show SaQ's response to 3D's Master assertion was:

You miss-remembered.

The entirety of which, was to try and cast doubt on my statements, and was thus an indirect request exactly for what Lawman said.

I didn't mean to bruise your ego but you did not address me in your post lawman and to my recollection this is the first we've ever addressed each other so...

Hello...

False:
The accusation was made by 3DMaster that religion is superstition. Consider it his opening statement, standing in direct contradiction with multiple definitions.

For every task there is a proper tool.
For determining the validity of a theory one uses the the scientific method.
For determining the truth of an accusation one needs a "crucible to burn away the irrelevancies" a hearing if you will, a set of rules for impartiality and consensus. Since science views the use of testimony as the least reliable method of determining the truth of course the truth must be determined judicially.

False. The theory is that religion is somehow something better and greater that superstition. That it somehow exempt from inquiry and criticism and must be treated as if it is truth.

I disputed that theory, and when people attempted to claim differently I and Lawman and others went to use logic and science to show this as false.

In fact there is evidence it's called testimony and it comes from many ancient cultures but science can't determine the veracity of testimony so science is impotent.

Oh I understand the point but it is nonetheless...
False:

Main Entry: 1ev·i·dence
Pronunciation: \ˈe-və-dən(t)s, -və-ˌden(t)s\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 a : an outward sign : indication b : something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter
2 : one who bears witness; especially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against his accomplices
— in evidence 1 : to be seen : conspicuous <trim lawns…are everywhere in evidence — American Guide Series: North Carolina>
2 : as evidence

Testimony is evidence.
Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.~Wiki & Babylon's Free Dictionary.

False, science has long since determined that the veracity of testimony is subject at best. Neurology and psychology shows that the human brain has many different ways it can fool itself and produce illusionary sights and feelings. And even when no such things occur, and we are talking about witnessing something and giving testimony to that, there are many ways in which a human can misremember things.

As a result of that, in a court it is the least trusted of evidences and for a scientific inquiry it is not considered evidence at all.

So no, in a scientific debate like this one, testimony is NOT evidence.

Further you said that it is impossible to prove a negative yet this statement has you coming to a negative judgment on the grounds of no proof.

A false syllogism...
A contradiction...

Perhaps it is my lack of understanding.
Care to explain?

It is not a contradiction at all, quite the contrary, they are perfectly reasonable, and in fact must logically follow from each other.

The exact reason why you can come to a negative judgment on the grounds of no proof, is because for a negative, there is no proof to be had.

If there is no evidence, let alone proof, for something, than it must logically follow (until new evidence comes along that does support it) that it doesn't exist.

After all, if one could not do this, one would have to assume that everything that has no evidence to support it, must be true regardless. Yes, indeed, there is a god, and an invisible flying spaghetti monster, Apollo and Zeus exist, so does Raiden, there are humans where blood is being pumped in the opposite direction than we see with every other human, water can flow upward, and on, and on, and on, and on.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

As for the matter of responsibility for Christ's death, the culprit you're looking for is me. Me and everyone else, actually. The participation of the Jews and Romans in the crucifixion of Christ is a matter of historical (and some theological) interest, but it has less to do with their Jewishness or their Roman-ness and more to do with their sinful human-ness. I can't ignore the likeliehood that if I had been in that crowd I would have most likely been clamoring for His blood as well. Because I'm weak, because I'm just as subject to the mob as everyone else. Jews are just as good and bad as everyone else, and equally in need of salvation.

Exactly--Christians believe that Jesus came with the intent of saving all peoples. And if all peoples require salvation, then all are responsible...not one ethnic group or another.

(Also, I would add that while some people claim the covenant with Israel was dissolved, other interpretations say it was not.)

 

[Mr Troi]

If you can't "trash" a person's belief, you can't debate with them. Belief in an imaginary god is a superstition, an illusion; and there's no way to say that, without saying it. If you're not allowed to say this opinion, it a. attacks my right of free speech, b. my opinions on how I see things, and c. it ends any and all debate.

Finally, once again, speaking out against someone's beliefs and speaking your opinion about them, is not disrespectful of their rights. Nowhere, have I ever even once, advocating attacking their rights, disrespecting them, banning them, or otherwise diminish their rights to believe in whatever they wish to believe.

I was only concerned about how you chose to reply to my original post. I made a comment about a person in a very serious situation and you replied with disdainful chatter about spaghetti monsters and such like. I never once made any comment about denying you your rights. I am truly at a loss as to how I may have prompted you to write that impassioned sermon.