Bush: I've got God, that puts me one up on Churchill

[headscratcher4]

I saw this in Salon today, if accurate, it may tell us all somehting about the Bush crack-up:

At the latest meeting of Bush's book club, where the guest was "Andrew Roberts, an English conservative historian and columnist and the author of 'The Churchillians' and, most recently, 'A History of the English-Speaking People Since 1900."

"The subject of Winston Churchill inspired Bush's self-reflection. The president confided to Roberts that he believes he has an advantage over Churchill, a reliable source with access to the conversation told me. He has faith in God, Bush explained, but Churchill, an agnostic, did not. Because he believes in God, it is easier for him to make decisions and stick to them than it was for Churchill. Bush said he doesn't worry, or feel alone, or care if he is unpopular. He has God."

With god at his side...what could possibly go wrong?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Why do you hate America?

[headscratcher4]

Because I hate freedom and democracy. I hate free speech too. Oh, yes, I hate lima beans most. I also hate American Idol.

[Darth Rotor]

I also hate American Idol.
That makes two of us.

Oh, I think President Bush missed a critical point. He is alive.

"I am alive, so that makes me two up on Churchill!"

Maybe that was edited out by a compassionate interviewer.

DR

[KoihimeNakamura]

Heh, I remember Bush's "If you aren't Christian..." gaffe a bit ago. Anyway, plenty can go wrong if God isn't talking to him. (Does he talk to ANYONE? - Er, wrong forum.)

[NotJesus]

Because I hate freedom and democracy. I hate free speech too. Oh, yes, I hate lima beans most. I also hate American Idol.


But why do you hate God?

[headscratcher4]

Yes, but Churhill could write...so maybe they're even.

[Upchurch]

Heh, I remember Bush's "If you aren't Christian..." gaffe a bit ago. I don't. :confused:

[gtc]

Kind of puts paid to the suggestion that bush is stupid, if he is reading history books like those.

[headscratcher4]

How do you figure he is reading them?

[hgc]

Bush is evidence that God hates America. Allahu Ackbar!

[Tony]

Is there anymore doubt that Bush is a complete moron?

[Tony]

How do you figure he is reading them?

And so what if he is? Just because he reads a book doesn't mean he's isn't stupid. It just means he is smart enough to be in the 1st grade.

[Darth Rotor]

Bush is evidence that God hates America. Allahu Ackbar!
I think the usual English presentation is "Akhbar" but that's a quibble.

I have never been to an ackbar, is it anything like a piano bar?

DR

[shecky]

Perhaps Bush was thinking of Ward Churchill?

[Mephisto]

How do you figure he is reading them?



I've got proof that he's read Albert Camus' The Stranger ;)



My Summer Reading Journal

George W. Bush reads Camus (as told to Julian Sanchez).
By Julian Sanchez
Web Exclusive: 08.18.06


August 4: For my summer vacation, I decided to read The Stranger by Albert Camus (in American). I decided this for a couple reasons. For one, there was this other book Terror and Liberalism I was listening to while I was jogging a while back, where it says Sayyid Qutb and that Zawahiri fella are like the evil bearded Mirror Universe versions of Albert here, who's big on freedom. Even turns out I already quoted him once about how democracy's a "long distance race." And the war on terror? That's a war of ideas. So we need to know what kind of philosophy we should be dropping on the bad guys' caves.

Another reason, salt of the earth folk like me who never read any Camus or Jacques Derrida or Gerard Depardieu, we're always getting our noses rubbed in it by all these snooty elites. This should show them. At least maybe they'll shut up about the goddamn goat book.


http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=11887

(edited to add)

August 7: Here comes the action! Meursault has a fight with some Arab guys, and then shoots one of them on this beach just because, and then everyone turns against him -- boy howdy, tell me about it! It was sort of a preemptive strike, but the guy he shot even had a knife out. But at the trial, they don't even talk about that, just about how cold he was at Mom's funeral, and some activist judge sentences him to death. Then at the end he flips out at this padre and gives this rambling speech I need to think some more about.

[headscratcher4]

I think it was the Classic Comics version....

[Mephisto]

I think it was the Classic Comics version....

Cliff's Notes would have been too comprehensive. ;)

[hgc]

I have never been to an ackbar, is it anything like a piano bar?

DR
Do you mean is it a gathering place for gay men? You can lose your head in Saudi Arabia for making such a suggestion.

[Mephisto]

Now I'm really confused, what does Allahu Gaybar mean? ;)

[Azure]

Is there anymore doubt that Bush is a complete moron?

He is a moron for saying this because Churchill is possibly the greatest leader the free world has known.

But he is not a moron for having faith in God. Once you can prove to me that God doesn't exist, then you might have a point. Until then...

[slingblade]

Azure, I personally don't have any stake in proving to you that God, Santa, and all the other imaginaries don't exist. I don't care what lunacy helps you sleep better.

I simply don't care what you think or why you think it.


I'm betting that makes us even, huh?

[Lonewulf]

But he is not a moron for having faith in God.

Is he a moron for claiming that he's better than someone else because "he has God", and the other person does not?

If not, then do you justify or defend that kind of behavior?

[Tony]

He is a moron for saying this because Churchill is possibly the greatest leader the free world has known.


Why do you hate making sense?

But he is not a moron for having faith in God.

He's a moron for claiming that his faith in god makes him a better leader than Churchill.

Once you can prove to me that God doesn't exist, then you might have a point.

The onus is on you to prove that god does exist. You can't prove a negative and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A real skeptic would know that. You are not a real skeptic.

[Azure]

Azure, I personally don't have any stake in proving to you that God, Santa, and all the other imaginaries don't exist. I don't care what lunacy helps you sleep better.

I simply don't care what you think or why you think it.


I'm betting that makes us even, huh?

So you assume that when I believe in God, I also believe in Santa?

Nice stretch there.

And its not lunacy, its called faith. Look it up.

[Azure]

Is he a moron for claiming that he's better than someone else because "he has God", and the other person does not?

If not, then do you justify or defend that kind of behavior?

Sure.

But he is not a moron for having faith in God. That was my original point.

Bush is not even half the man Churchill was.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

. . .
I hate lima beans most.
. . .


You bastard! How can you possibly live with yourself? :jaw-dropp

[Luke T.]

First, a link would help: Here you go! (http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/03/08/scooter_libby/index_np.html)

Next, the full article betrays an anti-Bush bias. It is not an objective article. So should we take this as gospel?

a reliable source with access to the conversation told me.

I just love that kind of crap. What is that, a third hand or fourth hand report? And what the hell does "access to the conversation" mean?

[geni]

make decisions and stick to them than it was for Churchill

I wasn't aware that any suggested that Churchill had a problem with sticking to decisions.

Invadeing southen europe yes, raceism yes, less than 100% record of choseing good scientists yes. Sticking to decisions not so much.

[Lonewulf]

So you assume that when I believe in God, I also believe in Santa?

It's called a comparison. In your own words, "look it up".

[steverino]

So you assume that when I believe in God, I also believe in Santa?

Nice stretch there.

And its not lunacy, its called faith. Look it up.

Funny. When I slammed Obama and Hillary for hootin' & hollerin' in Selma churches, no one on this forum mentioned the hypocracy of theism.

[Azure]

It's called a comparison. In your own words, "look it up".

Something is seriously missing up 'there' if you think Santa and God are a good comparison.

You can prove Santa doesn't exist, but you cannot prove that God doesn't exist.

[Cleon]

No, Azure, you're right. Bush isn't a moron for believing in God. Lots of intelligent, reasonable people believe in God.

Bush is a moron for thinking he's a better man than Churchill just because he believes in God. Not only that, he's a piss-poor Christian.

[Azure]

Agreed.

[hgc]

You can prove Santa doesn't exist, but you cannot prove that God doesn't exist.



Please prove Santa doesn't exist.

[a_unique_person]

No, Azure, you're right. Bush isn't a moron for believing in God. Lots of intelligent, reasonable people believe in God.

Bush is a moron for thinking he's a better man than Churchill just because he believes in God. Not only that, he's a piss-poor Christian.

And that because he believes in God, he can't make any wrong decisions.

[Lonewulf]

You can prove Santa doesn't exist.

Do so.

[gtc]

No, Azure, you're right. Bush isn't a moron for believing in God. Lots of intelligent, reasonable people believe in God.

Bush is a moron for thinking he's a better man than Churchill just because he believes in God. Not only that, he's a piss-poor Christian.

The quote in the OP says that Bush thinks he has an advantage over Churchill, not that he thinks that he is better. There is a difference.

I have an advantage over Hawking, because my legs work properly. Does that make me better? Of course not.

But sure, if it makes you feel better to assume that Bush is an idiot, then go right ahead.

[gtc]

And that because he believes in God, he can't make any wrong decisions.

Evidence that he believes that?

[Azure]

Please prove Santa doesn't exist.

Go to the North Pole and look for Santa and the elves.

Unless they moved due to global warming. ;)


or simply Santa is a popular mythological character


Speaking of the North American version of Santa.

[shecky]

I have an advantage over Hawking, because my legs work properly. Does that make me better? Of course not.


That advantage does make you better, in at least one area. You can literally walk circles around Hawking.

[steverino]

That advantage does make you better, in at least one area. You can literally walk circles around Hawking.

Well, in that case, I have more hair than Bill Gates. :p

[Charlie Monoxide]

When I hear someone profess their faith in god, I just substitute the word delusion, as in "I have my delusions"

I really wish that Bush (and others in the christian delusional crowd) would take some time out and read any objective book on the history of christianity. As Sam Harris puts it in "End Of Faith", "it's not a history of a loving god but one of ignorance and misery."

Charlie (proud of Bush and his delusions) Monoxide

[Lonewulf]

Go to the North Pole and look for Santa and the elves.

Unless they moved due to global warming. ;)

They live underground, in an entrance that only appears to True Believers (tm). If you don't find it, you're not a True Believer, obviously.

You're going to have to do better than that.

[Azure]

When I hear someone profess their faith in god, I just substitute the word delusion, as in "I have my delusions"

I really wish that Bush (and others in the christian delusional crowd) would take some time out and read any objective book on the history of christianity. As Sam Harris puts it in "End Of Faith", "it's not a history of a loving god but one of ignorance and misery."

Charlie (proud of Bush and his delusions) Monoxide

Wow, you're pretty ignorant.

So because Christianity has a bad history, it means anyone who is a Christian is delusional?

You my friend have no clue what Christianity is.

Hint: It has nothing to do with political or financial gain.

[fishbob]

Well, in that case, I have more hair than Bill Gates. :p

On your head?

[gtc]

That advantage does make you better, in at least one area. You can literally walk circles around Hawking.

I can write better physics equations with my left toe than Hawking.

P.S. There may not be a hell, but I am probably going there anyway.

[shecky]

Wow, you're pretty ignorant.

So because Christianity has a bad history, it means anyone who is a Christian is delusional?

You my friend have no clue what Christianity is.

Hint: It has nothing to do with political or financial gain.


Christianity isn't delusional because it has a bad history. It is delusional because it is a collection of extremely unlikely and impossible to prove beliefs.

[steverino]

On your head?

No. On the bodies hanging in my basement.

[Upchurch]

Note for the future, Azure.

This:
You can prove Santa doesn't exist, but you cannot prove that God doesn't exist.
was an argumentative mistake in this thread. You will be taken to the cleaners on this one.

[Lonewulf]

Wow, you're pretty ignorant.

Pot, Kettle meet.

I shouldn't be saying stuff like this, but quite frankly, your straw men stink too much for me to hold a civil tongue. You shouldn't let them get so damp.

[ImaginalDisc]

Go to the North Pole and look for Santa and the elves.

Unless they moved due to global warming. ;)

Ad hoc hypothesis used to support the original hypothesis. Thus, your hypothesis is unfalsifiable, just like god.

[Azure]

Nice guys, very nice.

Funny how the ignorance on here regarding religion is so apparent.

[hgc]

Go to the North Pole and look for Santa and the elves.

Unless they moved due to global warming. ;)


That might prove that Santa doesn't live at the North Pole (or is not in residence at the time I check in there), but it doesn't prove that Santa doesn't exist.

Keep trying.

[Azure]

That might prove that Santa doesn't live at the North Pole (or is not in residence at the time I check in there), but it doesn't prove that Santa doesn't exist.

Keep trying.

I already gave you a quote from Wikipedia that calls Santa a mythological being.

Besides, I'm not going to argue this point with people who don't know the first thing about religion.

[Upchurch]

Funny how the ignorance on here regarding religion is so apparent.
uh-huh. Enlighten us. What do you know about religion that the rest of us are ignorant of?

[Lonewulf]

Funny how the ignorance on here regarding religion is so apparent.

What? All you do to defend religion is call it "faith". Faith in something that is untrue is another term for delusion.

I already gave you a quote from Wikipedia that calls Santa a mythological being.

And so is God. And?

Besides, I'm not going to argue this point with people who don't know the first thing about religion.

AKA, "I'm right, you're wrong, no matter how many facts you have on your side. I will now go and leave you unimpressed, as I know I can't win this argument."

[Charlie Monoxide]

Wow, you're pretty ignorant.

So because Christianity has a bad history, it means anyone who is a Christian is delusional?

You my friend have no clue what Christianity is.

Hint: It has nothing to do with political or financial gain.Thank you for your kind reply, but please, we're not friends.

I did not (mean to) imply that christianity is delusional because of it's bad history. I did mean to imply that christianity's believers are delusional if they think their religion is founded on "a loving god" with lots of good will and happiness spread by it's believers.

I believe all religion are "equal opportunists" in the delusion game. It's that I do have many "clues" about christianity and therefore feel quite secure in my statements about the "god awful" delusions that it's christianity adherents subscribe to.

Charlie (spreading rationality like a to the hordes of believers) Monoxide

[steverino]

uh-huh. Enlighten us. What do you know about religion that the rest of us are ignorant of?

"The rest of us" is not a typical, cross section of society, but a logic-based minority, which is cool. But to suggest "the rest of us" hold the majority opinion on religion outside the forum is, IMO, overreaching.

I am also a bit uncomfortable with the casual swapping of the terms "god" and "christianity" on this thread.

[Upchurch]

"The rest of us" is not a typical, cross section of society, but a logic-based minority, which is cool. But to suggest "the rest of us" hold the majority opinion on religion outside the forum is, IMO, overreaching.
That's all true had I been referring to the country or world when I referred to "us". I was, in fact, referring to, at most, the board and, more specifically, those participating in this thread.

I am also a bit uncomfortable with the casual swapping of the terms "god" and "christianity" on this thread.
Why don't we just stick to figuring out how you can prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist in a way that is not equally applicable to God?

[Lonewulf]

I am also a bit uncomfortable with the casual swapping of the terms "god" and "christianity" on this thread.

Alright, allow me to be general enough:

Any theistic belief based around the idea of an invisible omnipotent deity is delusional.

This includes Deism, Judaism, Islamism, Christianity, Catholocism, and Zoroastrianism.

Actually, wait, that's not inclusive enough! Any belief that involves supernatural events is, in general, delusional. There may very well be exceptions, but I'm highly dubious.

[steverino]

Alright, allow me to be general enough:

Any theistic belief based around the idea of an invisible omnipotent deity is delusional.

This includes Deism, Judaism, Islamism, Christianity, Catholocism, and Zoroastrianism.

Actually, wait, that's not inclusive enough! Any belief that involves supernatural events is, in general, delusional. There may very well be exceptions, but I'm highly dubious.

Thanks. That's better.:p

[a_unique_person]

Evidence that he believes that?



Because he believes in God, it is easier for him to make decisions and stick to them than it was for Churchill



It's Iraq all over. Never admit you are wrong. For Cheney, it appears to be sheer politics, for Bush, he just goes on his gut feeling, (god helps him out with this), and sticks to it. It's not the only time this belief has been made by him and published.

[a_unique_person]

I am also a bit uncomfortable with the casual swapping of the terms "god" and "christianity" on this thread.

If I'm not going to believe in a god, it's going to be the true god, not one of those other fakes.

[Lonewulf]

Thanks. That's better.:p

I live to (not) please.

[Darth Rotor]

I did mean to imply that christianity's believers are delusional if they think their religion is founded on "a loving god" with lots of good will and happiness spread by it's believers.

Charlie (spreading rationality like a to the hordes of believers) Monoxide
You are delusional to think that Christian believers don't spread good will and happiness.

Some do it better than others, and of course, some downright suck at it. (Fred Phelps, poster boy for getting it wrong.)

Do you broad brush much, Charlie, when trying to paint a picture? Is this neo impressionism on the internet that you are trying out here?

DR

[shecky]

You are delusional to think that Christian believers don't spread good will and happiness.


It might be more convincing if Christians were any better in this regard than non Christians. But they aren't. And along with any good will and happiness, a load of magical BS is sure to follow.

Christians are just as prone to spreading stupidity and hatred as anyone else. Sometimes, they'll even do it in the name of their chosen delusion, and go so far as to call it good will and happiness.

[steverino]

It might be more convincing if Christians were any better in this regard than non Christians. But they aren't. And along with any good will and happiness, a load of magical BS is sure to follow.

Christians are just as prone to spreading stupidity and hatred as anyone else. Sometimes, they'll even do it in the name of their chosen delusion, and go so far as to call it good will and happiness.

How do you know? Where are your statistics? You'd have to take all Christians, weigh their good-doings, then take all the non-believers, weigh theirs, and compare what they do in orders of magnitude, and then the volume of good and bad deeds per capita.

When you have figured all this out, then you will have to divide the believer with the belief system and realize humans are, well, human, even if their belief means well.

[Kerberos]

Go to the North Pole and look for Santa and the elves.


And when Neil Amstrong ascended into the heavens did they see any gods or angels?

Besides, Santa Clause lives on Greenland, everyone knows that.

[Kerberos]

I already gave you a quote from Wikipedia that calls Santa a mythological being.

Would you like me to go in and edit the Wikipedia artickle on god so that he is designated as a mythological being or the Santa clause article so he's not? Seriously using Wikipedia as proof of something like that is way beoynd ridicilous, try again.

[Kerberos]

Alright, allow me to be general enough:

Any theistic belief based around the idea of an invisible omnipotent deity is delusional.

This includes Deism, Judaism, Islamism, Christianity, Catholocism, and Zoroastrianism.

Actually, wait, that's not inclusive enough! Any belief that involves supernatural events is, in general, delusional. There may very well be exceptions, but I'm highly dubious.
This includes Christianity, and Catholicism? :p

[Lonewulf]

This includes Christianity, and Catholicism? :p

Yes. I differentiate them for no particular reason.

It also includes non-theistic yet supernatural beliefs like Shinto (Folk, State, etc.), the Greek pantheon, the Roman pantheon (Again, differentiated for no particular reason), the beliefs of the various Native American tribes, the beliefs of the various native Australian tribes, and the Penguin God of the Penguins. I just know those guys up there worship the God of Linux.

[Mephisto]

You can prove Santa doesn't exist, but you cannot prove that God doesn't exist.

You also can't prove that Zeus, Mars, Quetzalcoatl, Siva, Freja, Obatala, Auchimalgen or Wepwawet don't exist so they must actually exist, right?

Frankly Santa Claus was easier to believe in because he gave me something tangible every year, he knew if I was bad or good, he required no sacrifices, had no dogma, his songs were usually cheerful, never caused a single plague, didn't require his son (who also happens to be him) to die, and treated all children equally as long as they were good.

You do realize that the proof of existence falls on those who make the claims, don't you?

[Kerberos]

Yes. I differentiate them for no particular reason.


Did you grow up around fundamentalistic Protestants? that's the people I mostly hear making that distinction.

[Skeptic]

Because he believes in God, it is easier for him to make decisions and stick to them than it was for Churchill.

The question here is context. What is Bush's underlying assumption? If Bush implicitly assumes here that Churchill was a wavering weakling while God makes Bush strong in his decision, then, yes, it's a silly comment.

But that's not what the context implies. One can say many things about Bush, but I've never heard anybody ever claim that he considered Churchill a weak leader. If anything, he seems to admire Churchill.

So a much more likely interpretation of what Bush says here is that Bush is not saying he's a greater statesman than Churchill, or that Churchil had not stuck to his decisions, but merely saying that it is easier for him to stick to decisions that it was for Churchill, when it is understood by all that Churchill did stick to them.

If anything, Bush is praising Churchill for sticking to his guns despite that it must have been harder for him due to lack of belief in God. Bush's point is to note belief in God helps him, not to say he's superior to Churchill because of that.

He could just as well have said that he is glad he can walk, which makes it easier for him than it was for Roosevelt. That would hardly be claiming that he is a better person than Roosevelt because he can walk; if anything, it would be praise of Roosevelt's strong character.

Not that I have much hope my interpretation will gain wide acceptance here, since we all know Bush is guilty until proven innocent, which is never.

It's the usual circular logic: if a statement Bush made could be interpreted in two ways, one innocent and the other making him look stupid, then "of course" he "really meant" the statement that makes him look stupid because we "all know" he's an idiot. But how do we know that in the first place? Well, due to the other 1,000 statements that were interpreted the same way.

[slingblade]

So you assume that when I believe in God, I also believe in Santa?

Nope. I simply lump all the imaginary beings together. god = santa = tooth fairy = easter bunny = etc.

Nice stretch there.

Nice assumptive misread.

And its not lunacy, its called faith. Look it up.

I know all about it. It will let one down, every time.

[Mashuna]

How do you know? Where are your statistics? You'd have to take all Christians, weigh their good-doings, then take all the non-believers, weigh theirs, and compare what they do in orders of magnitude, and then the volume of good and bad deeds per capita.

When you have figured all this out, then you will have to divide the believer with the belief system and realize humans are, well, human, even if their belief means well.

I did all the above, and came out with a good-doing value of 7.5 for Christians, and 7.3 for non-christians. Or was it the other way round?

Crap, I'm going to have to start again.

[Ladewig]

Something is seriously missing up 'there' if you think Santa and God are a good comparison.

You can prove Santa doesn't exist, but you cannot prove that God doesn't exist.


A discussion about this point might be better served by starting a new thread in the religion sub-forum. The topic is important enough for its own thread.

[Mephisto]

The question here is context. What is Bush's underlying assumption? If Bush implicitly assumes here that Churchill was a wavering weakling while God makes Bush strong in his decision, then, yes, it's a silly comment.

But that's not what the context implies. One can say many things about Bush, but I've never heard anybody ever claim that he considered Churchill a weak leader. If anything, he seems to admire Churchill.

So a much more likely interpretation of what Bush says here is that Bush is not saying he's a greater statesman than Churchill, or that Churchil had not stuck to his decisions, but merely saying that it is easier for him to stick to decisions that it was for Churchill, when it is understood by all that Churchill did stick to them.

If anything, Bush is praising Churchill for sticking to his guns despite that it must have been harder for him due to lack of belief in God. Bush's point is to note belief in God helps him, not to say he's superior to Churchill because of that.

He could just as well have said that he is glad he can walk, which makes it easier for him than it was for Roosevelt. That would hardly be claiming that he is a better person than Roosevelt because he can walk; if anything, it would be praise of Roosevelt's strong character.

Not that I have much hope my interpretation will gain wide acceptance here, since we all know Bush is guilty until proven innocent, which is never.

It's the usual circular logic: if a statement Bush made could be interpreted in two ways, one innocent and the other making him look stupid, then "of course" he "really meant" the statement that makes him look stupid because we "all know" he's an idiot. But how do we know that in the first place? Well, due to the other 1,000 statements that were interpreted the same way.

I see where you're coming from here, Skeptic and I did understand the premise in the OP, but that doesn't let Bush off the hook. Churchill may actually have had it harder than Bush, who can rationalize that the death and suffering he's caused can be written off because he believes God will make the final judgement.

I think most of us here are arguing that Bush's delusional belief shouldn't be a reason to feel more secure in his bad judgement. A certified sociopath could easily make the same claims.

[Mephisto]

Besides, I'm not going to argue this point with people who don't know the first thing about religion.

OH WAIT, I KNOW, I KNOW THIS ONE . . .

It's Let there be light . . . no wait, it's judge not lest ye be judged . . . naw, that's not it . . . it's . . . there's an invisible man who lives in the sky, and he's given us all ten rules to follow because he loves us, but if you break any of those ten rules and don't apologize he'll send you to a place of misery and fire where you'll burn for all eternity, but he loves you . . . no wait that's not it . . . I know, it's when God says that he's merciful and can't stay angry at us for long (Jeremiah 3:12), or is it the part where he says we've kindled a fire in his anger which IS forever (Jeremiah 17:4), I forget.

Well one of those is the first thing about religion, I'm not too sure about the second thing though.

[steverino]

I did all the above, and came out with a good-doing value of 7.5 for Christians, and 7.3 for non-christians. Or was it the other way round?

Crap, I'm going to have to start again.

I'm flattered.:p

[strathmeyer]

Didn't Bob Dylan write a song about this?

[Lonewulf]

Did you grow up around fundamentalistic Protestants? that's the people I mostly hear making that distinction.

Many make that distinction, that I know of. Protestants and Catholics tend to follow different scriptures, so they're considered seperate in some discussions. Catholics accept certain things (such as an order of angels, etc.) that the Protestants will not. Catholics are fine with the Pope, and Protestants want to pull away from a central body (from what I know of).

There are distinctions there, even though both are, essentially, Christians (as they believe in Christ as a savior).

[Orangutan]

I already gave you a quote from Wikipedia that calls Santa a mythological being.

Besides, I'm not going to argue this point with people who don't know the first thing about religion.

A mythological being just means that there a stories about it, often with supernatural content.

The fact that there are stories about it don't disprove the existence of said being.

So you still haven't dis-proven the existence of Santa, But luckily by the same definition God's existence is not dis-proven either.

EDIT!
EEK! Big edit, I forgot the "don't" (bolded) (see quote below). Sorry fixed now.

[ImaginalDisc]

A mythological being just means that there a stories about it, often with supernatural content.

The fact that there are stories about it disprove the existence of said being.

So you still haven't dis-proven the existence of Santa, But luckily by the same definition God's existence is not dis-proven either.

Did he just joke Wikipedia to disprove something based solely on the authority of Wikipedia? I didn't know that was allowed.

[Beerina]

And that because he believes in God, he can't make any wrong decisions.

This presumes:

1. God exists
2. God cares about Bush and is actually helping him
3. God doesn't make mistakes

History and observations around us show all 3 propositions, including the last, are highly questionable.

[hgc]

I already gave you a quote from Wikipedia that calls Santa a mythological being.

Besides, I'm not going to argue this point with people who don't know the first thing about religion.


Prove that I don't know the first thing about religion. If you can do this, then I'll excuse you from having to prove that Santa doesn't exist. You can start by telling me what the first thing about religion actually is. Then you may proceed to prove that I don't know it.

[Upchurch]

hgc, did you know that:

Religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion) is often described as a communal system for the coherence of belief focusing on a system of thought, unseen being, person, or object, that is considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine, or of the highest truth.

?

I'd call that the first thing about religion.

[hgc]

hgc, did you know that:


I'd call that the first thing about religion.


Hmmm. That's pretty interesting. I'm going to look into this "religion" thing more carefully. Can anyone recommend a particular religion, or should I take the ecumenical approach? What I'm looking for in religion is the fastest path to being able to prove that Santa doesn't exist. Then I want a BMW.

[Upchurch]

Hmmm. That's pretty interesting. I'm going to look into this "religion" thing more carefully. Can anyone recommend a particular religion, or should I take the ecumenical approach?
Unitarian Universalism.

What I'm looking for in religion is the fastest path to being able to prove that Santa doesn't exist.
Oh, Puritanism.

Then I want a BMW.
Oh, $cientology.

[hgc]

Unitarian Universalism.


That's your thing, right? From what I've heard, that's hardly more religious than a Tuesday night bowling league.

[Upchurch]

that's hardly more religious than a Tuesday night bowling league.
Not even remotely true!

It's like a Tuesday night bowling league that discusses various religions.

[Lonewulf]

Not even remotely true!

It's like a Tuesday night bowling league that discusses various religions.

Do they accept pastafarians?

[Upchurch]

Do they accept pastafarians?

Its never specifically come up, but I don't see why not.




eta: you should ask Azure. I don't know the first thing about religion.

[steverino]

This presumes:

2. God cares about Bush and is actually helping him


Maybe these bumper stickers I see around here are true, that "God is a Democrat."

[Madalch]

Another reason, salt of the earth folk like me who never read any Camus or Jacques Derrida or Gerard Depardieu, we're always getting our noses rubbed in it by all these snooty elites. This should show them. At least maybe they'll shut up about the goddamn goat book.
As much as I dislike Bush, I love this quote.

Of course, we really know that "that goat book" wasn't "My Pet Goat", but a pornographic magazine that the Marquis sent him.

[steverino]

As much as I dislike Bush, I love this quote.

Of course, we really know that "that goat book" wasn't "My Pet Goat", but a pornographic magazine that the Marquis sent him.

I always thought Shemp was the goat-go-to-guy on these boards.:confused:

[a_unique_person]

I think we have all failed to identify the underlying question here that sits willingly behind all the wonderous and magical things that is religion. Why do christians/catholics need fear (hell) and praise (heaven) to do selfless acts?

[President Bush]

I think President Bush missed a critical point. He is alive.
A live what (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.noctes-gallicanae.org/Testamentum%2520porcelli/Testamentum_porcelli.htm&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=5&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DTestamentum%2BPorcelli%26hl%3Den%26rl s%3DGGLJ,GGLJ:2006-33,GGLJ:en)?

[Kerberos]

Many make that distinction, that I know of. Protestants and Catholics tend to follow different scriptures, so they're considered seperate in some discussions. Catholics accept certain things (such as an order of angels, etc.) that the Protestants will not. Catholics are fine with the Pope, and Protestants want to pull away from a central body (from what I know of).

There are distinctions there, even though both are, essentially, Christians (as they believe in Christ as a savior).
Yes Protestants and Catholics can clearly be considered different, but people don't usually differentiate between "Christians and Catholics" unless they don't consider Catholics Christians which, in my experience is, an attitude you mainly encounter from Fundamentalistic Protestant which you, I presume, are not. It doesn’t really matter, but I just found the distinction from such an atypical source amusing. :-)

[Mephisto]

Do they accept pastafarians?

What are those? Italians who've rejected Catholicism? ;)

[Azure]

I see that nobody has yet mentioned the 'first' thing about religion.

Keep trying folks. ;)

[Elizabeth I]

You also can't prove that Zeus, Mars, Quetzalcoatl, Siva, Freja, Obatala, Auchimalgen or Wepwawet don't exist so they must actually exist, right?

WHAT? Mars doesn't exist? What's that (sort-of) round thing out there between Earth and Jupiter then?

[Lonewulf]

What are those? Italians who've rejected Catholicism? ;)

Mmmmm... Italians.

I see that nobody has yet mentioned the 'first' thing about religion.

Breach of Membership Agreement removed.


Keep it civil, Lonewulf - don't personalize the discussion. These kinds of insults add nothing of value to a thread.

[Darth Rotor]

A live what (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.noctes-gallicanae.org/Testamentum%2520porcelli/Testamentum_porcelli.htm&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=5&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DTestamentum%2BPorcelli%26hl%3Den%26rl s%3DGGLJ,GGLJ:2006-33,GGLJ:en)?
The purpose of that link was . . . what?

DR

[Azure]

Mmmmm... Italians.
Breach of Membership Agreement removed.

Nah. I'd rather keep religion out of the political forum.

[steverino]

Breach of Membership Agreement removed.

Breach of Membership Agreement removed..

Those on this forum preaching for tolerance toward atheism should simply be preaching tolerance for all, and then practice what you preach.

[Lonewulf]

Breach of Membership Agreement removed.

If you say so. :)

Those on this forum preaching for tolerance toward atheism should simply be preaching tolerance for all, and then practice what you preach.

I'm surprisingly tolerant. I'm just not tolerant of people that claim that I'm "ignorant" towards any one thing, and then refuses to talk about it because it's in the wrong forum. You don't want someone to strike you, don't hit them first.

I love how you target me, but totally overlook Azure's posts. Bias, anyone?

[Gurdur]

...Those on this forum preaching for tolerance toward atheism should simply be preaching tolerance for all, and then practice what you preach.
Regardless of this particular context, the sentiment is very true in general (though you ought to be taking a stick to Azure too). Mind you, general laid-back tolerance is often rare in a bulletin-board format, since sloganizing and sneering make easier posts, and cut off discussions; but that does not obviate its validity.

[Upchurch]

I see that nobody has yet mentioned the 'first' thing about religion.

Keep trying folks. ;)
Translation: I don't really know something the rest of you don't, I just pretend that I do so that I can feel important.


Thanks for playing Azure. Feel free to come back when you can support the things you claim.

[Upchurch]

Breach of Membership Agreement removed.

Those on this forum preaching for tolerance toward atheism should simply be preaching tolerance for all, and then practice what you preach.
Now, I see it as showing Azure as much respect as he is showing other posters in this thread. "I know something you don't know, but if you can't guess it, I'm not going to tell you what it is" is not only transparently obvious, it got old in grade school.

[President Bush]

The purpose of that link was . . . what?
You said I, President Bush, was alive. I linked a testament to that...
You seem to be unaware of why I am called Scrofa, “Sow”. Thus learn, and at the same time those which are beside you will know also, that my family does not carry a nickname due to the pigs and which I am not downward of Eumée! My ancestor who accepted the first this nickname of Sow was a questeur near the praetor Licinius Nerva. This one had left him the command of the army until its return in their province of Macedonia. There the enemy, seeing a chance to gain a victory undertook throw a violent one attack against the fortified camp. My ancestor exhorted the soldiers to take the weapons and to make an exit to push back the enemies and he says that he was going to disperse them as a sow disperses its piglets, which he did. And in fact, in this battle it hustled the enemies and put them so well in escape that for that the Nerva praetor accepted the title of Imperator and my ancestor gained there to receive this nickname of Sow.

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.noctes-gallicanae.org/Testamentum%2520porcelli/Testamentum_porcelli.htm&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=5&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DTestamentum%2BPorcelli%26hl%3Den%26rl s%3DGGLJ,GGLJ:2006-33,GGLJ:en

Open-ended, perhaps. Thought you'd be up to it.

[Mephisto]

Feel free to come back when you can support the things you claim.

But you can't prove that he can't support the things he claims. That must mean that he can . . . right? ;)

[Mephisto]

WHAT? Mars doesn't exist? What's that (sort-of) round thing out there between Earth and Jupiter then?

No silly, the guy that planet was named after - you know, the God of War (Dubya's patron) :)

I can prove Mars the planet exists - I saw it in a Val Kilmer movie.

[Lonewulf]

But you can't prove that he can't support the things he claims. That must mean that he can . . . right? ;)

But you can't prove that he can't prove that he can't support the things he claims!

AH HAH!

[Mephisto]

But you can't prove that he can't prove that he can't support the things he claims!

AH HAH!

No, he can prove it, but won't so that must mean that he can't divulge to us the first thing about religion, unless he won't because he can't really make out what the first thing about religion really is . . . or something.

(edited to add) I DO know that Possession is 9/10s of the law - oh and your mother sews socks that smell. ;)

[Lonewulf]

(edited to add) I DO know that Possession is 9/10s of the law - oh and your mother sews socks that smell. ;)

I don't think they smell because my mom sewed them... :boggled:

[Upchurch]

Those on this forum preaching for tolerance toward atheism should simply be preaching tolerance for all, and then practice what you preach.
Actually, I don't think the majority of this forum has ever preached for tolerance towards logical fallacies, which is what Azure is getting nailed for.

[steverino]

Actually, I don't think the majority of this forum has ever preached for tolerance towards logical fallacies, which is what Azure is getting nailed for.

And you are the judge of what is a logical fallacy?

Houston, we have a problem.

[Upchurch]

And you are the judge of what is a logical fallacy?
I'm not. I'm no more judging that his argument is a logical fallacy than I'm judging that an apple is an apple.

What Azure has claimed is that he can prove a negative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof), namely that he can prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist. It is a logical fallacy because it fits the definition of that particular type of logical fallacy.

[baron]

"He has faith in God, Bush explained, but Churchill, an agnostic, did not. Because he believes in God, it is easier for him to make decisions and stick to them than it was for Churchill."

The ease with which he makes decisions is clear to all. Unfortunately they're usually the wrong ones.

[Azure]

I'm not. I'm no more judging that his argument is a logical fallacy than I'm judging that an apple is an apple.

What Azure has claimed is that he can prove a negative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof), namely that he can prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist. It is a logical fallacy because it fits the definition of that particular type of logical fallacy.

Fair enough.

It is quite funny how you guys go anal over it. For me, I don't equate Santa with God. Why? Because the belief systems are entirely different.

I was told about Santa as a child by my parents, until I was about 5-6 years old, where I figured out by myself that my dad, not Santa, put the presents under the tree. My belief in Gods existence is much more complex. It is not something I could prove, neither is it something I could disprove. Nor could anyone else for that matter.

I think Randfan started a thread in another section of the forum, where he/she said that it is possible to be a skeptic, AND be religious at the same time. Now, I do not take the Bible literally, and I also believe in evolution as a fact. I believe that the Big-bang is a very possible start for the universe, and I do not understand why the big bang and God must be mutually exclusive.

Now that is just my belief.

Oh, reading through this thread, nobody has yet mentioned the first thing I learned about religion. On a board full of skeptics, I find that hard to believe. But come to think of it, when the basic definition of Christianity is misused, and posted in a false manner by people like Ivor, I don't find it surprising that the single most important thing of religion is so hard to come by.

Its faith people. Faith.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_in_Christianity

Now, Christianity is not a belief in the miracles told by a man named Jesus Christ as Ivor would have us believe, but a belief in the birth, death and resurrection by Jesus Christ which brought salvation. Along with the Trinity.

Reading through Wikipedia, the main beliefs it mentions are, Jesus Christ, Death and Resurrection, Salvation and the Trinity. All of those beliefs are based on faith. So therefore faith is the central part of Christianity, and probably the most important part of any religion.

Now that was an explanation only. I was not trying to preach, even though some of you are going to think I'm trying to covert you.

[Upchurch]

Fair enough.

It is quite funny how you guys go anal over it. For me, I don't equate Santa with God. Why? Because the belief systems are entirely different.

I was told about Santa as a child by my parents, until I was about 5-6 years old, where I figured out by myself that my dad, not Santa, put the presents under the tree. My belief in Gods existence is much more complex. It is not something I could prove, neither is it something I could disprove. Nor could anyone else for that matter.
So, what's different between your former belief in Santa and your current belief in God? Just that it is more complex? A complex belief is more faith-worthy than a simple belief?

I could provide you thousands of examples that things attributed to God that really occur by other means, just as what was attributed to Santa Claus was really made by your father. Why reject one and not the other?


Oh, reading through this thread, nobody has yet mentioned the first thing I learned about religion. On a board full of skeptics, I find that hard to believe.
That would be because you did not talk about the first thing you learned about religion. You said we did not know the first thing about religion. This is another fallacy. It is called moving the goalposts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goalpost).

But assuming that you had intended us to guess what the first thing you personally learned about religion, how could we possibly know what that would have been?


But come to think of it, when the basic definition of Christianity is misused, and posted in a false manner by people like Ivor, I don't find it surprising that the single most important thing of religion is so hard to come by.

Its faith people. Faith.
So, is faith the first thing about religion, the first thing you learned about religion, or the single most important thing of religion?

Anyway, it's your assertion, by this statement:
Funny how the ignorance on here regarding religion is so apparent.
that we didn't know that religion involves faith? Or was there some other aspect of religion that you think we are arrogant?


Now, Christianity is not a belief in the miracles told by a man named Jesus Christ as Ivor would have us believe, but a belief in the birth, death and resurrection by Jesus Christ which brought salvation.
The resurrection of Jesus wasn't a miracle?

[RandFan]

I think Randfan started a thread in another section of the forum, where he/she said that it is possible to be a skeptic, AND be religious at the same time. Bear in mind that this is JMO and it is a controversial one. It depends on how one defines skeptic.

[Azure]

Bear in mind that this is JMO and it is a controversial one. It depends on how one defines skeptic.

Well I agree with you. There are certain things that we encounter as we live that require more faith and trust that everything will go right, than they do scientific knowledge, PROVING it will turn out perfect.

The afterlife for example? Even skeptics do not know what happens in the afterlife.

[Lonewulf]

Well I agree with you. There are certain things that we encounter as we live that require more faith and trust that everything will go right, than they do scientific knowledge, PROVING it will turn out perfect.

Very little in science is fully proven. Theories are almost always inductive, and open to new scientific evidence. Faith, by most accounts, is not.

The afterlife for example? Even skeptics do not know what happens in the afterlife.

And what's the difference between saying, "The afterlife exists, and this is what I must do to get the good reward", and "I don't know whether or not the afterlife exists"?

Hint: there's a big difference. One is made by the theist, the other not.

Touting belief in something without requisite evidence requires that you give up skepticism on the subject.

[Azure]

Problem is Lone, I don't 'know' that it exists either. That is only my belief.

Usually it takes faith to have such a belief.

[Lonewulf]

Usually it takes faith to have such a belief.

And that's why I'll never have it, nor will I ever preach it.

To me, faith is the same as a willing delusion.

[Azure]

And that's why I'll never have it, nor will I ever preach it.

To me, faith is the same as a willing delusion.

Can I substitute faith for religion?

"To me, religion is the same as a willing delusion."

Fair enough though, I certainly will not try to covert you.

[Lonewulf]

Can I substitute faith for religion?

"To me, religion is the same as a willing delusion."

Feel free.

Religion is a delusion that you're willing to take on. I've never said, nor thought, anything different. Even as they attempted to brainwash me into being a Christian as a youth.

Fair enough though, I certainly will not try to covert you.

Fair enough. I know I sound somewhat bitter, but I grew up put into a religious school system where the majority of people were ignorant (from instructors to students) to an amazing degree, and I was further abused by other students under the nose of a religion that was supposedly about forgiveness and doing good deeds.

In the end, however, I think that all things should be questioned; and religion should not be exempt from that. I think that religion is treated far differently than any other subject, when it should not be. Just because one cannot disprove a God, does not mean that one must necessarily entertain the claim that He exists.

[Azure]

Feel free.

Religion is a delusion that you're willing to take on. I've never said, nor thought, anything different. Even as they attempted to brainwash me into being a Christian as a youth.


Probably the biggest reason people leave their religious background is because of that. I never grew up like that, in fact the religious people I was around, my parents, grandparents, etc, etc...never questioned my beliefs, nor did they ever pressure me to go to Church, Sunday School or prayer meetings.


Fair enough. I know I sound somewhat bitter, but I grew up put into a religious school system where the majority of people were ignorant (from instructors to students) to an amazing degree, and I was further abused by other students under the nose of a religion that was supposedly about forgiveness and doing good deeds.


Nothing wrong with that. But, in my personal growth throughout the past 5 years, going from not believing in evolution, not believing in the Big-Bang(I actually only believe it is a plausible theory), and taking the Bible literally, to now understanding and accepting evolution, to understanding what the Big-bang is, and the science behind it, and to read the Bible with some sort of a skeptical viewpoint; it has all shown me that that science and religious can co-exist, and one does not need to think each is mutually exclusive. I am not overly religious, although I hold one belief: that God exists.

That to me is what the new generation will be like; many of my friends that I grew up with share basically the same belief...but we face a challenge, especially over the ignorance many religious folks show towards evolution. I do think, eventually religious folks will be more accepting of science, instead of outright ignoring it.


In the end, however, I think that all things should be questioned; and religion should not be exempt from that. I think that religion is treated far differently than any other subject, when it should not be. Just because one cannot disprove a God, does not mean that one must necessarily entertain the claim that He exists.

One of the biggest problems I have is challenging religious people I know on their belief system.

We must always challenge everything we believe...just like a scientist comes up with a theory, then spends time trying to disprove that exact theory.

We must do the same, especially with religion.

[Mephisto]

The afterlife for example? Even skeptics do not know what happens in the afterlife.

Not many skeptics claim to know what happens after we die, while that is almost a prerequisite for most Western religions.

People are always willing to move the goalposts for religion. When I was a young boy, my mother took me aside shortly before Easter and explained to me that the Easter Bunny didn't exist. Naturally my next question was whether Santa Claus existed to which she replied a sad, "no." I went down the list asking about all the mythological beings I had cherished or feared; the tooth fairy? "no," goblins and witches? "no," Dracula? "no," and I could see in her eyes that I had lost my innocence. When I came to "Jesus?" She smiled and said, "No, Jesus is real."

I've been a skeptic ever since. Faith to me is the selfish hope that your myths are more real than anyone else's.

As I said before, I would frankly rather believe in Santa Claus as he's never threated to send me to an eternity of suffering for not believing in him. Santa Clause is kinder and more compassionate than God and all he ever required of me is that I be a good person.

[Lonewulf]

And if you do bad, you get free coal! Woo!

[steverino]

As you Libs equate the belief in God with being delusional, I certainly hope you are not going to vote for those two church goers, Hillary and Obama.
Or is it just right-wing delusions you take issue with?;)

[Lonewulf]

As you Libs equate the belief in God with being delusional, I certainly hope you are not going to vote for those two church goers, Hillary and Obama.
Or is it just right-wing delusions you take issue with?;)

I'm not a liberal. Oops! There goes your remarkably short-sighted stereotyping...

It's what happens when you look through your black-and-white colored glasses, instead of seeing the world for what it really is. There's a lot more than just two sides to any one issue; but I forgive you, 'cause I don't think you can understand that. :)

[steverino]

It's what happens when you look through your black-and-white colored glasses, instead of seeing the world for what it really is.

If you do say so yourself.:p

[Lonewulf]

If you do say so yourself.:p

Alright, go ahead. Tell me why I'm a liberal, again?

Without evidence, your statement was that much manure. Go figure.

[steverino]

I'm not a liberal. Oops! There goes your remarkably short-sighted stereotyping...

It's what happens when you look through your black-and-white colored glasses, instead of seeing the world for what it really is. There's a lot more than just two sides to any one issue; but I forgive you, 'cause I don't think you can understand that. :)

I was not talking to YOU. I was talking to the liberals who post here. Kind of blows your rant, don't it.

[Lonewulf]

I was not talking to YOU. I was talking to the liberals who post here. Kind of blows your rant, don't it.

Not really, since you specifically targeted the claim of religion being delusional, and as far as I know, I'm the one that's mainly making that claim. Kinda blows your statement, don't it? Otherwise, you're just simply making stereotypes regardless, along with the ad hominem belief that just because someone is a "liberal", they must automatically defend people like Obama or Hillary, and can't disagree with them or any of their decisions.

[steverino]

Not really, since you specifically targeted the claim of religion being delusional, and as far as I know, I'm the one that's mainly making that claim. Kinda blows your statement, don't it? Otherwise, you're just simply making stereotypes regardless, along with the ad hominem belief that just because someone is a "liberal", they must automatically defend people like Obama or Hillary, and can't disagree with them or any of their decisions.

OK. I'll play. Would you consider voting for a president who attends church regularly and believes in God, regardless of party affiliation, considering that president would be delusional?

[Lonewulf]

OK. I'll play. Would you consider voting for a president who attends church regularly and believes in God, regardless of party affiliation, considering that president would be delusional?

I would not make a decision based solely on that limited amount of data.

[steverino]

I would not make a decision based solely on that limited amount of data.

Pun intended?:)

[Lonewulf]

Pun intended?:)

I don't see it...

What's your point, anyways?

[steverino]

I don't see it...

What's your point, anyways?

Solely, like the soul. I thought it was a good pun.

[Lonewulf]

Solely, like the soul. I thought it was a good pun.

Ah. I guess it's safe to say it was unintentional then.

However, what is your point as to what president I would or would not elect?