View Single Post
Old 08-09-2009, 05:21 PM   #79
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Vienna
Posts: 1,585
Current Game: KOTOR III
Well this thread should be considered dead, but I'm going to revitalize it because I saw some interesting statements I wanted to comment on.

Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
Which points of christian doctrine do we have any evidence for? If we have no good reasons for thinking that any of them are correct, then it stands to reason that every single one of them "necessarily entail the possibility of 'steering one wrong'".
Does this have to with people not believing in god being the reason not to carve 'in god we trust' in a government building, or is it because there are others who have different beliefs? If this state is meant to be a melting pot, then such words essentially paint everyone as believers of god... even if they're not.

My quarrel isn't so much in a slogan that doesn't apply to me, but because believing in god isn't important enough to make an issue of it. I would be satisfied if some hooligan just spray-painted the words on the building and they just left it alone. If they squander government funding and carve the words, then I don't care at that point... the mistake was already made.

Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
Apologies, Samuel. I don't see the whole "accepting jesus as your personal savior" (and all it's repercussions) as being anything other than such a gamble.

And again, I think this sounds like special pleading. Claims should be tested. If claims cannot be tested, they should not be accepted. And claims that are accepted without good reasons would certainly seem to invoke the first definition of superstition, per your source.
Exactly. Faith is something that people can have to their selves, but it is not meant to be an excuse for people to act without the need for proof. If you wish to have your faith respected, then you must not attempt to force it upon others.

Originally Posted by Achilles View Post

My test remains as it was before: show me a single rational component to christian doctrine and I will hopefully be able to see your point.

And I don't see how this is anything other than special pleading. These beliefs should be subject to the same tests and consideration as any other belief. I have yet to see a good argument for exception.

This reasoning seems circular. It is natural to consider god to be omnipotent because that's how we should expect god to be. Please help me understand what I'm misunderstanding.
A very good point that I keep trying to emphasize, but is always taken as 'atheist prejudice.' When you introduce an omnipotent being into any equation, then it essentially makes everything else moot. If god can do anything, then you essentially can answer every question with 'god did it.' That would make just as much sense as evolution, creationism, heaven, hell, everything.

It all hinges upon one small, but critical factor... it is usually accompanied by the presence of a god. You cannot use the existence of the universe as proof in itself, because no one can prove beyond a doubt that god was responsible for all that.


I really don't care one way or another if someone wants to put religious words on a government building, provided that they do it with private funding. Once they use public funding for something so insignificant as religious words and detract from more important issues, you defile everything that those words are supposed to represent. Spending all the money in suing the state and wasting that money on carving those words speaks volumes on the reasons why religion should be kept out government priorities.

Last edited by Darth_Yuthura; 08-09-2009 at 05:27 PM.
Darth_Yuthura is offline   you may: