Sorry for the delay. Lot to shift through
Epsilon:
"If you were on this board claiming that the tooth fiary was real, I would be perfectly right to call your beliefs patently ridiculous. And yes, you refer to Pascal's Wager. It states, to summarize, "If god doens't exist and I worship him, no big lose when i die. If he does, and I fail to, I will be condemned to hell when I die. Therefore, it is only logical to believe in god."
Which is fine, but what god? Jesus? The god of Abraham? Allah? Buddha? Wodin? Gaia? Eris? The Flying Spagetti Monster?
Which "god" is correct. There is no proof that any of them exist, and you are taking a huge wager in trying to please a god that may either not exist, or mya be opposed to your worship of a "false religon" and damn you to hell for it."
But which is better? To do something in good faith and be wrong or do nothing and be wrong? Pascal's wager examplifies
this I think. Sure I could be wrong but at least i tried and I'm
willing to accept the consequences of that. Sometimes you
don't have the luxury of always knowing the right thing to do.
Also I stand corrected as far as virgins and stds though if
everyone did practice abstinance I don't see how the STDs
could get into the system to begin with..
and I am a protestant well pretty much anyway.
Ayiekie:
Well I could grant you the primates but dolphins? Come on. You are applying modern techniques to ancient societies.
Something that too many people tend to do. Now Rev dark
makes a point that it could ahve come from 'social contract'
but that contract hasd to be based on religious not secular
values. Hence morality starting from Reglion is correct. IMO
anyway. Since then it has perpetuated through famial, societial and religious influences. Sort of like a perpetual motion machine, though now a days I wonder of if it isn't
breaking down....
As for africa, You assume the USA has a duty to help them.
Hate to tell you this but the USA chooses to help and the gov.
have the right to add whatever restrictions on that help
as The goverment sees fit. You may not like it and to
be honest I don't like it myself but that is the way it is.
Better than most other countries that don't help much at
all.
Rev Dark:
I've reread alot of the posts and I realized that I was guilty
of doing the very thing I was opposing. The pushing of my
beliefs on someone else. As far as that goes I apologize.
I can't prove to you that god exists. However, You can't
prove to me he doesn't either. Since you have hinted
that I am delusional (('beleiving in an ' imaginary friend') and
everything I say is suspect I can hint at the belief that
you are a religious fanatic and hold the same suspicion.
Athiesm is a religion after all.
And you do have the right to say want you want. I was mistaken again.
I did read the report you linked in. I'd suggest you go with
the facts and not the left wing crapfest of the register.
However, I find it strange that none of the scientists
asked the question 'why'?. Also page 42 of the report
seems to be confusing on how they got their control
group together. If the control group is the one they
compare the answers of the program group to then it is
majorly flawed.
Kokuten:
I think that what is required in
school should be taught there while what the church teaches
should be taught in church. Then you can choose which one
you wish to beleive. As for the rest.
Shove it.
And letting the goverment teach your children any better?
That is asking to turn them into fascists..or worse.
Everyone: I don't buy biological function as an excuse for abstinance failure. That would excuse rape because the
rapist was follow his biological urges, which is ridiculous. We are thinking beings with the ability to choose. Not animals
that have no choice but to follow our instincts. there
are millions of adult virgins in the world. Just because
something is popular and feels good doesn't make it
right.
Epsilon:
"If you were on this board claiming that the tooth fiary was real, I would be perfectly right to call your beliefs patently ridiculous. And yes, you refer to Pascal's Wager. It states, to summarize, "If god doens't exist and I worship him, no big lose when i die. If he does, and I fail to, I will be condemned to hell when I die. Therefore, it is only logical to believe in god."
Which is fine, but what god? Jesus? The god of Abraham? Allah? Buddha? Wodin? Gaia? Eris? The Flying Spagetti Monster?
Which "god" is correct. There is no proof that any of them exist, and you are taking a huge wager in trying to please a god that may either not exist, or mya be opposed to your worship of a "false religon" and damn you to hell for it."
But which is better? To do something in good faith and be wrong or do nothing and be wrong? Pascal's wager examplifies
this I think. Sure I could be wrong but at least i tried and I'm
willing to accept the consequences of that. Sometimes you
don't have the luxury of always knowing the right thing to do.
Also I stand corrected as far as virgins and stds though if
everyone did practice abstinance I don't see how the STDs
could get into the system to begin with..
and I am a protestant well pretty much anyway.
Ayiekie:
Well I could grant you the primates but dolphins? Come on. You are applying modern techniques to ancient societies.
Something that too many people tend to do. Now Rev dark
makes a point that it could ahve come from 'social contract'
but that contract hasd to be based on religious not secular
values. Hence morality starting from Reglion is correct. IMO
anyway. Since then it has perpetuated through famial, societial and religious influences. Sort of like a perpetual motion machine, though now a days I wonder of if it isn't
breaking down....
As for africa, You assume the USA has a duty to help them.
Hate to tell you this but the USA chooses to help and the gov.
have the right to add whatever restrictions on that help
as The goverment sees fit. You may not like it and to
be honest I don't like it myself but that is the way it is.
Better than most other countries that don't help much at
all.
Rev Dark:
I've reread alot of the posts and I realized that I was guilty
of doing the very thing I was opposing. The pushing of my
beliefs on someone else. As far as that goes I apologize.
I can't prove to you that god exists. However, You can't
prove to me he doesn't either. Since you have hinted
that I am delusional (('beleiving in an ' imaginary friend') and
everything I say is suspect I can hint at the belief that
you are a religious fanatic and hold the same suspicion.
Athiesm is a religion after all.
And you do have the right to say want you want. I was mistaken again.
I did read the report you linked in. I'd suggest you go with
the facts and not the left wing crapfest of the register.
However, I find it strange that none of the scientists
asked the question 'why'?. Also page 42 of the report
seems to be confusing on how they got their control
group together. If the control group is the one they
compare the answers of the program group to then it is
majorly flawed.
Kokuten:
I think that what is required in
school should be taught there while what the church teaches
should be taught in church. Then you can choose which one
you wish to beleive. As for the rest.
Shove it.
And letting the goverment teach your children any better?
That is asking to turn them into fascists..or worse.
Everyone: I don't buy biological function as an excuse for abstinance failure. That would excuse rape because the
rapist was follow his biological urges, which is ridiculous. We are thinking beings with the ability to choose. Not animals
that have no choice but to follow our instincts. there
are millions of adult virgins in the world. Just because
something is popular and feels good doesn't make it
right.