Notices
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 317
Like Tree35Likes

Thread: the Right to Vote

  1. #1 the Right to Vote 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    113
    I am of the opinion that religious people should not have the right to vote and I am interested in any opinion for or against my case. I did document my case in the following blog, “the Right to Vote” http://edwardwechner10.blogspot.com.au/ and would appreciate any comment on it.


    Last edited by Edward Wechner; November 17th, 2012 at 02:58 AM.
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Sorry. We have to live with the voters we've got.

    There are lots of people with silly ignorant opinions (daylight saving fades the curtains). Others allow their lives to be run by the dictates of superstitious nonsense like tarot or astrology or numerology. Some people's thinking is warped by horrible past experiences - torture or war, children who were neglected or abused, anyone can get PTSD from lots of other things. And then there are all the other psychiatric and behavioural disorders - all but a few of these people can vote. And then there are all the not so bright or poorly educated people, they vote too.

    There are political views just as dangerous as those of some religious persuasion or other.

    Democracy has to be universal with rare exceptions only (like people who are serving longish prison terms for example) or it soon ceases to be democratic at all. We no longer tolerate the franchise being denied on the basis of property or race or gender, we shouldn't start bringing back new restrictions to the franchise.


    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Sorry. We have to live with the voters we've got.

    There are lots of people with silly ignorant opinions (daylight saving fades the curtains). Others allow their lives to be run by the dictates of superstitious nonsense like tarot or astrology or numerology. Some people's thinking is warped by horrible past experiences - torture or war, children who were neglected or abused, anyone can get PTSD from lots of other things. And then there are all the other psychiatric and behavioural disorders - all but a few of these people can vote. And then there are all the not so bright or poorly educated people, they vote too.

    There are political views just as dangerous as those of some religious persuasion or other.

    Democracy has to be universal with rare exceptions only (like people who are serving longish prison terms for example) or it soon ceases to be democratic at all. We no longer tolerate the franchise being denied on the basis of property or race or gender, we shouldn't start bringing back new restrictions to the franchise.
    I am happy to live with democracy as is and the current voting laws, but the voting right is only given to persons with "sound mind" and no "criminal convictions". Religious people just don't meet these conditions and we should apply the law to the letter.
    chad likes this.
     

  5. #4  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    You say you're in Australia but you say that people must have no criminal convictions in order to vote. That isn't so. The restrictions apply to people who are in prison for sentences of a certain length - those with shorter sentences can even vote while in prison. (The only impediment would be enrolling at a usable address.)

    I still disagree with the religious exclusion. There are plenty of people with no religion at all or with psychiatric conditions or other 'issues' who would meet the criteria you're applying to determine that adherents of religions are not of sound mind.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Edward, that's one of the most bigoted things I've seen posted here.
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    "religious people should not have the right to vote"
    So you would have a questionnaire where people say which religion their parents gave them, and if they believe in the god, if they still "really" believe. You could also have a choice of answers for those who would say im not 100% sure if I believe and you have them choose a likely hood, 10%, 30%, 50%, 70%, 90% just to lull them in a false sense of security when even those saying they think there's 90% chance theres no god would be deemed unfit. And the Mormons probably would all have to not vote for fear of community reprisal and ostracism if they did vote since it would indicate they had claimed not to believe in the magical underpants and fairy tale so many might say they do believe even if they actually dont

    But I thinks its lacking, because it leaves people that believe in astrology off the hook. And what about those that think ghost exist? And those that think telepathy exists (but not clairvoyance because "that" is not true ). But then a Clairvoyant/tarot reader/astrologist con artist charlatan preying on the gullible would want to make sure his answer would be confidential for fear of loosing clients or might also have to say in believes in his bullshit just to be sure he stays on the gravy train.

    But then, the steaming pile of Bullshit LIES used to justify war are believed by a lot of criminally negligent uninformed people, clearly they dont have what it takes to choose the lying politicians that sells them the bullshit, and thats not even esoteric, you can verify that they are lying with documents, these people are even more tangibly inept. Anyone so inept at deciphering propaganda that they were in favor of the Iraq War should not be allowed to vote too. Which reminds me of a quote attributed to George Bush senior saying that Atheist should not even be considered citizens of something like that, which makes sense since if you are a professional liar, the last thing you want is people that question bullshit and dont blindly "believe" things leaders say, but its a good thing he didnt prevent atheists from voting.

    Im not sure its a pragmatic solution. They say no taxation without representation, so I guess all religious people would be exempt from paying taxes, which might create mass conversion, "yeah I believe, Jesus walked on water!"
    Last edited by icewendigo; November 17th, 2012 at 09:35 AM.
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Edward, that's one of the most bigoted things I've seen posted here.
    Not everybody agrees with you

    Originally Posted by Aqueous Id
    I made it through your blog without the discomfort I anticipated from the introduction. My take is that it's well-written, clear and logical.



    Firstly, I want to thank you for the effort to actually read my blog, I feel honored by your comments. Most other "sciforums" members do form their opinion based only on the title and bring up irrelevant and senseless arguments, just for the sake of arguing.

    I have no intention to discriminate against anyone, not even religious people, but we need to find a better way to run our countries, Israel and Palestine are not good examples.

    Richard Dawkins and myself, we did read the bible and we believe we are entitled to an opinion. Everyone else is also entitled to an opinion, but may I suggest a little protocol:

    1) If you read the bible and you believe it is the truth and live in accordance with the moral values taught in the bible, then you are not of "sound mind" and you should not have the right to vote. We do not want a country where it is a requirement to stone an adulteress to death and kill all gay people, or kill your child if it curses you.

    2) If you did not read the bible then you are not entitled to comment on it.

    3) If you read the bible and you find that it is a "naive fairy tale" (Albert Einstein's description of the bible) then I do encourage you to also read my blog and there is a good chance that you will agree with it.

    My gratitude goes to "sciforums" for attracting members like Aqueous Id, members that put some thought in it before they waffle nonsense.
     

  9. #8  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    My gratitude goes to "sciforums" for attracting members like Aqueous Id, members that put some thought in it before they waffle nonsense.
    I beg your pardon!

    What makes you think that other forum members didn't read your blog and aren't familiar with the bible? Just because you've used your knowledge and experience to come up with an idea that's all neatly tied up by your own logic, it doesn't necessarily follow that anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant of the things you're talking about and has failed to read and follow your argument and is incapable of logic.

    Right now, I and every other right thinking person on the planet is seething with fury about insane religious beliefs leading to the prolonged, agonising death of a healthy young woman in Ireland. Her only failing was to be unable to complete a miscarriage without medical assistance and she happened to be in a place where she was denied routine medical care.

    We all know that she's not the only one who's died from this kind of medical malpractice, in Ireland or in other places that claim to be religious, but for now her unnecessary death is driving a lot of activity against religion's influence on public policy and public opinion.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    My gratitude goes to "sciforums" for attracting members like Aqueous Id, members that put some thought in it before they waffle nonsense.
    I beg your pardon!

    What makes you think that other forum members didn't read your blog and aren't familiar with the bible? Just because you've used your knowledge and experience to come up with an idea that's all neatly tied up by your own logic, it doesn't necessarily follow that anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant of the things you're talking about and has failed to read and follow your argument and is incapable of logic.

    Right now, I and every other right thinking person on the planet is seething with fury about insane religious beliefs leading to the prolonged, agonising death of a healthy young woman in Ireland. Her only failing was to be unable to complete a miscarriage without medical assistance and she happened to be in a place where she was denied routine medical care.

    We all know that she's not the only one who's died from this kind of medical malpractice, in Ireland or in other places that claim to be religious, but for now her unnecessary death is driving a lot of activity against religion's influence on public policy and public opinion.
    I am sorry, I did copy my text from another forum, just wanted to show off that someone actually finds my blog "well-written, clear and logical" and had no intent to denigrate your valued contribution. I fully support everything you say and also feel outraged about the senseless death in Ireland.

    I am sure you also share my views on the varying classifications of rape that the Republicans wanted to consider in their policy. I don't know what they had in mind, probably half violent rape three quarter violent rape and fully violent rape, and an abortion will only be granted at the fully violent rape case, absurdity does not seem to have any limits.

    I think, however, that there is room for some more optimism in relation to your first statement "Sorry. We have to live with the voters we've got." we may be able to change things, look at France, fifty years ago it would have been unthinkable to ban the cross from the class room, today it is law, I am just so excited about that.

    Bear in mind that there are some of us that firmly believe religions will disappear for good on this earth in long terms, a simple conclusion based on the trend of human development. The ABC radio host, Phillip Adam suggested not long ago in a TV show that all religions will simply fade away within one hundred years. I like it, but it maybe a bit over optimistic, my guess is it will take probably 500 years, you maybe interested in looking at my blog "Physics and Religion" Physics and Religion

    Again, sorry for my comment, I addressed a few wafflers from another forum and had no intention to include your valuable comment in it.
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Edward, that's one of the most bigoted things I've seen posted here.
    It would be helpful if you would indicate where you see the bigotry.

    Other people see it as, well-written, clear and logical.
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Wechner View Post
    Other people see it as, well-written, clear and logical.
    One other person, actually.

    Aqueous Id is a poster I respect, greatly, but you also did not quote his entire post. You did link to it...

    Here's the deal:
    The purpose of the Vote is to allow Majority Rule.

    If the Majority in a society believes that cannibalism is the way to go, it gets voted in. If you're the minority and you do not wish to live as a cannibal, you are S.O.L. That's why there's a vote and not a dictatorship, you see.

    Excluding a large group of people from voting is utter nonsense. I'm an atheist, myself and sometimes referred to as militant atheist. I find the Republicans in my country as somewhat absurd when they let their beliefs in religion dictate how they politicize.
    Example, "I'm not a witch, I'm you!" "I read recently that these scientists are growing human brains on mice!"

    When it goes beyond absurd; gay marriage, abortion, and the like, their religious views can often cause misery for anyone in the minority to their majority of religious thinkers. Even so, as the majority, it's pretty much might makes right- since the majority gets to call how the majority is to live.
    Needless to say many rational people will disagree with such ideas, but the majority rules. To take away the vote is to subject the majority, to remove equality that rational people stand for, to suppress thought, opinion and expression.

    You may have put a lot of thought into your blog. But you didn't put this thought into it. All the more reason to discuss on a forum with others, see what they have to say, rather than blogging alone and not having your thoughts challenged.
    adelady likes this.
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Wechner View Post
    Other people see it as, well-written, clear and logical.
    One other person, actually.

    Aqueous Id is a poster I respect, greatly, but you also did not quote his entire post. You did link to it...

    Here's the deal:
    The purpose of the Vote is to allow Majority Rule.

    If the Majority in a society believes that cannibalism is the way to go, it gets voted in. If you're the minority and you do not wish to live as a cannibal, you are S.O.L. That's why there's a vote and not a dictatorship, you see.

    Excluding a large group of people from voting is utter nonsense. I'm an atheist, myself and sometimes referred to as militant atheist. I find the Republicans in my country as somewhat absurd when they let their beliefs in religion dictate how they politicize.
    Example, "I'm not a witch, I'm you!" "I read recently that these scientists are growing human brains on mice!"

    When it goes beyond absurd; gay marriage, abortion, and the like, their religious views can often cause misery for anyone in the minority to their majority of religious thinkers. Even so, as the majority, it's pretty much might makes right- since the majority gets to call how the majority is to live.
    Needless to say many rational people will disagree with such ideas, but the majority rules. To take away the vote is to subject the majority, to remove equality that rational people stand for, to suppress thought, opinion and expression.

    You may have put a lot of thought into your blog. But you didn't put this thought into it. All the more reason to discuss on a forum with others, see what they have to say, rather than blogging alone and not having your thoughts challenged.

    Next time I write another blog, I will ask for your advice, I promise.
     

  14. #13  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    I might be presuming on what neverfly would make of your comment.

    Next time I write another blog, I will ask for your advice, I promise.
    From my point of view, the object of a posting like the one you've referred to is to gain comments, insights, references, other facts and some criticisms from other people. This helps you refine your thinking and perhaps write something similar but more developed in a couple of months time after you've had time to reflect.

    Neverfly may wish to respond differently, but your posts should be an indication of your current thinking and not treated as a final statement of unarguable truth.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    I might be presuming on what neverfly would make of your comment.

    From my point of view, the object of a posting like the one you've referred to is to gain comments, insights, references, other facts and some criticisms from other people. This helps you refine your thinking and perhaps write something similar but more developed in a couple of months time after you've had time to reflect.
    Pretty much nailed it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Wechner View Post
    Next time I write another blog, I will ask for your advice, I promise.
    Now see... I cannot tell if this is sincere or sarcasm. But see Adelady's response.
    You may write the blog, same as I may write a post. Just because I take a certain position in a thread on a forum, doesn't mean I will always have that political position.
    My mind can be changed by convincing arguments. For example, years ago, I was pro-life. Now, I'm pro-choice. Say what you want to say. On a blog or on a forum. But be prepared for challenge when others can respond to what you say and be prepared to consider changing a position if compelling arguments show you that what you expressed may not be as solid as you had thought.
    You don't need anyone's advice before you write a blog, but you may be open to criticism along with clapping on the back.
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    I might be presuming on what neverfly would make of your comment.

    Next time I write another blog, I will ask for your advice, I promise.
    From my point of view, the object of a posting like the one you've referred to is to gain comments, insights, references, other facts and some criticisms from other people. This helps you refine your thinking and perhaps write something similar but more developed in a couple of months time after you've had time to reflect.

    Neverfly may wish to respond differently, but your posts should be an indication of your current thinking and not treated as a final statement of unarguable truth.
    I did not mean to make a final statement or state an unarguable truth, (in fact I did specifically request some feedback), but if you saw it that way, I take it as a compliment.
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    I might be presuming on what neverfly would make of your comment.

    From my point of view, the object of a posting like the one you've referred to is to gain comments, insights, references, other facts and some criticisms from other people. This helps you refine your thinking and perhaps write something similar but more developed in a couple of months time after you've had time to reflect.
    Pretty much nailed it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Wechner View Post
    Next time I write another blog, I will ask for your advice, I promise.
    Now see... I cannot tell if this is sincere or sarcasm. But see Adelady's response.
    You may write the blog, same as I may write a post. Just because I take a certain position in a thread on a forum, doesn't mean I will always have that political position.
    My mind can be changed by convincing arguments. For example, years ago, I was pro-life. Now, I'm pro-choice. Say what you want to say. On a blog or on a forum. But be prepared for challenge when others can respond to what you say and be prepared to consider changing a position if compelling arguments show you that what you expressed may not be as solid as you had thought.
    You don't need anyone's advice before you write a blog, but you may be open to criticism along with clapping on the back.
    I do not understand why you believe that I am not searching for a challenge in my position, that is the only reason I did post it here, so feel free to challenge, I like it, I just don't seem to get any challenges.
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Wechner View Post
    I just don't seem to get any challenges.
    Are you saying that you do not understand the challenges or that you received no challenges?
    Because I see challenges...
    Even from yourself, here:
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Wechner View Post
    I have no intention to discriminate against anyone, not even religious people, but we need to find a better way to run our countries,
    In this you admit it's discrimination.

    A "better" way is a matter of opinion. I don't disagree with your desire to have more rational politicians put in office. I understand your frustration. I'm sure that no one posting on here would suggest that it's good for any country to have primitive superstitions being used to govern or make laws.
    But that's just us.
    We don't get to tell the majority out there what to do or what to believe.

    Encourage critical thinking, education and rational thought as much as you can. For us, we may have to cope in a world divided in our generation and perhaps the generation that follows us. But in time, the majority of people out there may just be a majority of critical thinkers.
    But if in Krasnovia, the majority of the populace votes that all citizens must dress in fig leaves and wear butt plugs to prevent Global Warming, then that is the majority rules. Grow a fig tree and visit your friendly neighborhood toy store or move to another country.
    (I'd opt to move.)
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Wechner View Post
    I just don't seem to get any challenges.
    Are you saying that you do not understand the challenges or that you received no challenges?
    Because I see challenges...
    Even from yourself, here:
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Wechner View Post
    I have no intention to discriminate against anyone, not even religious people, but we need to find a better way to run our countries,
    In this you admit it's discrimination.

    A "better" way is a matter of opinion. I don't disagree with your desire to have more rational politicians put in office. I understand your frustration. I'm sure that no one posting on here would suggest that it's good for any country to have primitive superstitions being used to govern or make laws.
    But that's just us.
    We don't get to tell the majority out there what to do or what to believe.

    Encourage critical thinking, education and rational thought as much as you can. For us, we may have to cope in a world divided in our generation and perhaps the generation that follows us. But in time, the majority of people out there may just be a majority of critical thinkers.
    But if in Krasnovia, the majority of the populace votes that all citizens must dress in fig leaves and wear butt plugs to prevent Global Warming, then that is the majority rules. Grow a fig tree and visit your friendly neighborhood toy store or move to another country.
    (I'd opt to move.)
    I did read what you wrote and have trouble disagreeing with anything you said. Maybe I dare to disagree with your comment "But that's just not us". Yes, it maybe us. Just think of the extraordinary changes that did happen recently in our world, like the breaking down of the Berlin Wall, nobody would have predicted it, even one month before it happened. We do tell the majority out there what to do, or what to believe, that is just us! Charles Darwin, one of my favorite roll models, did it, and he is continuing to do it. His work is not based on opinion, believe or tradition, no, it is an extraordinary amount of human effort to analyse and document the most intricate details of nature, so convincingly that no rational human being could ever contradict it. Charles Darwin makes me believe in the capability for us humans to survive, he is an extraordinary example of human capability. I believe in us.
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Wechner View Post
    I did read what you wrote and have trouble disagreeing with anything you said. Maybe I dare to disagree with your comment "But that's just not us".
    Remove the word, "not."
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Wechner View Post
    Yes, it maybe us. Just think of the extraordinary changes that did happen recently in our world, like the breaking down of the Berlin Wall, nobody would have predicted it, even one month before it happened. We do tell the majority out there what to do, or what to believe, that is just us! Charles Darwin, one of my favorite roll models, did it, and he is continuing to do it. His work is not based on opinion, believe or tradition, no, it is an extraordinary amount of human effort to analyse and document the most intricate details of nature, so convincingly that no rational human being could ever contradict it. Charles Darwin makes me believe in the capability for us humans to survive, he is an extraordinary example of human capability. I believe in us.
    This is an excellent counter-argument. But Consider, Darwin did not force Theory of Evolution on anyone. Those that brought down the Berlin Wall were resisting being forced.
    Other examples would include Rosa Parks or Martin Luther King jr. who stood up for equality and whom demonstrated the fallacy of segregation and inequality (What if Dr George Carruthers had been barred from University because of his skin color? Although, admittedly that was a bit before MLK's time...) yet, none of these examples forced oppression on others, they stood up against it, as a minority. They did not say white people could not vote; they said that black people could vote.
    Now, these people were hero's for rights and equality, great people that courageously made a difference and brought about change that improved so many lives. One was a Reverend and the other was very religious.
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Wechner View Post
    I did read what you wrote and have trouble disagreeing with anything you said. Maybe I dare to disagree with your comment "But that's just not us".
    Remove the word, "not."

    This is an excellent counter-argument. But Consider, Darwin did not force Theory of Evolution on anyone. Those that brought down the Berlin Wall were resisting being forced.
    Other examples would include Rosa Parks or Martin Luther King jr. who stood up for equality and whom demonstrated the fallacy of segregation and inequality (What if Dr George Carruthers had been barred from University because of his skin color? Although, admittedly that was a bit before MLK's time...) yet, none of these examples forced oppression on others, they stood up against it, as a minority. They did not say white people could not vote; they said that black people could vote.
    Now, these people were hero's for rights and equality, great people that courageously made a difference and brought about change that improved so many lives. One was a Reverend and the other was very religious.
    No, that is the point I make, Darwin did not force the Theory of Evolution on to anyone, he did only put the effort in, to explain it unquestionably, to anyone with the intellect to understand it. I have no other intent, I do not force anyone into anything.
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Wechner View Post

    No, that is the point I make, Darwin did not force the Theory of Evolution on to anyone, he did only put the effort in, to explain it unquestionably, to anyone with the intellect to understand it. I have no other intent, I do not force anyone into anything.
    But you are forcing submission if you deny the right to Vote. It is oppression, the very thing your examples stood against.
    Strange likes this.
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Wechner View Post

    No, that is the point I make, Darwin did not force the Theory of Evolution on to anyone, he did only put the effort in, to explain it unquestionably, to anyone with the intellect to understand it. I have no other intent, I do not force anyone into anything.
    But you are forcing submission if you deny the right to Vote. It is oppression, the very thing your examples stood against.
    No, I do not force anyone into anything, I just want the current laws to be implemented, if we don't like the laws then we should change them. But as for now, anyone that is not of "sound mind" does not have the right to vote.
     

  24. #23  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,585
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Wechner View Post
    [FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]I am of the opinion that religious people should not have the right to vote
    I would remove the right to vote from bigoted cretins first. (But, as Voltaire didn't say, I would fight to the death for their right to vote.)
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
     

  25. #24  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,585
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Wechner View Post
    I am happy to live with democracy as is and the current voting laws, but the voting right is only given to persons with "sound mind" and no "criminal convictions". Religious people just don't meet these conditions and we should apply the law to the letter. [/I]
    What gives you the right to decide that people who believe something different from you are not of sound mind. Maybe they would the say the same about you. So that is two reasons why you should not be allowed to vote.

    There are plenty of religious people who have made great contributions to every area of society. Why would you deny such people the right to vote?

    There are atheists who do bad things. But they somehow are better human beings in your mind?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Wechner View Post
    [FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]I am of the opinion that religious people should not have the right to vote
    I would remove the right to vote from bigoted cretins first. (But, as Voltaire didn't say, I would fight to the death for their right to vote.)
    Yes, you are right, but Voltaire did not say that he would fight to the death for the right of people with no "sound mind" to vote.
     

  27. #26  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,585
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Wechner View Post
    [COLOR=#333333][FONT=Georgia]I have no intention to discriminate against anyone, not even religious people,
    But you are discriminating. And if you can't see that, then I would suggest you are not of sound mind.

    [COLOR=#333333][FONT=Georgia]Richard Dawkins and myself, we did read the bible and we believe we are entitled to an opinion.
    So you put yourself in the same group as that anti-religious bigot. Not a good start in my book·

    1) If you read the bible and you believe it is the truth and live in accordance with the moral values taught in the bible, then you are not of "sound mind" and you should not have the right to vote. We do not want a country where it is a requirement to stone an adulteress to death and kill all gay people, or kill your child if it curses you.
    What about people who have read the bible, don't think it is all true (some of it obviously is true) but live by some of the moral values in the bible? Are they of partly sound mind and are allowed half a vote?

    What about people who think everything in the bible is wrong? They are clearly either ignorant or not of sound mind. Are they allowed a vote?

    How many religious people in your country (Australia?) want to stone adulteresses, etc? Or is this just a strawman argument?

    3) If you read the bible and you find that it is a "naive fairy tale" (Albert Einstein's description of the bible) then I do encourage you to also read my blog and there is a good chance that you will agree with it.
    If the comments you have made here are typical of your blog posting. I will pass. I doubt I would agree with any of it.

    As you are they guy who posted a profoundly ignorant and deranged article about dimensions (as well as a few extremely dull articles on technology) I don't think you are of sound mind. Should you be denied the right to vote?

    My gratitude goes to "sciforums" for attracting members like Aqueous Id, members that put some thought in it before they waffle nonsense.
    Well, maybe you should just crawl back under that stone with your bigoted pals and stop wasting our time here.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
     

  28. #27  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,585
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Wechner View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Wechner View Post
    [FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]I am of the opinion that religious people should not have the right to vote
    I would remove the right to vote from bigoted cretins first. (But, as Voltaire didn't say, I would fight to the death for their right to vote.)
    Yes, you are right, but Voltaire did not say that he would fight to the death for the right of people with no "sound mind" to vote.
    Blimey. You are so deranged you can't even tell when you are being insulted and when someone disagrees with you. No vote for you, my friend.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Wechner View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Wechner View Post
    [FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]I am of the opinion that religious people should not have the right to vote
    I would remove the right to vote from bigoted cretins first. (But, as Voltaire didn't say, I would fight to the death for their right to vote.)
    Yes, you are right, but Voltaire did not say that he would fight to the death for the right of people with no "sound mind" to vote.
    Blimey. You are so deranged you can't even tell when you are being insulted and when someone disagrees with you. No vote for you, my friend.
    I am very happy not to be your "friend" you are not deranged, you are just a pathetic arshole.
     

  30. #29  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,585
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Wechner View Post
    I am very happy not to be your "friend" you are not deranged, you are just a pathetic arshole.
    Excellent. If someone like you doesn't like me I must be going something right in my life. Thanks for the validation.

    I notice you can't spell, either. No vote for you in my democracy.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Wechner View Post
    I am very happy not to be your "friend" you are not deranged, you are just a pathetic arshole.
    Excellent. If someone like you doesn't like me I must be going something right in my life. Thanks for the validation.

    I notice you can't spell, either. No vote for you in my democracy.
    Just as well we don't have "your" democracy.
     

  32. #31  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,585
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Wechner View Post
    Just as well we don't have "your" democracy.
    Well, at least that statement is something we can agree on. I wouldn't want a democratic system defined by a neo-fascist scumbag. You wouldn't want one defined by a liberal atheist copy-editor. So be it.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
     

  33. #32  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    anyone that is not of "sound mind" does not have the right to vote.
    I just had a thought after a night's sleep. You do know that the 'sound mind' criteria would be determined on the same basis as used in other legal contexts. So a conclusion that someone was unfit to vote would also apply to other matters. It would mean that such people would be unable to write a will - or buy a house or a car or undertake a mortgage or other loan without a guarantor or a guardian as a co-signatory.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    anyone that is not of "sound mind" does not have the right to vote.
    I just had a thought after a night's sleep. You do know that the 'sound mind' criteria would be determined on the same basis as used in other legal contexts. So a conclusion that someone was unfit to vote would also apply to other matters. It would mean that such people would be unable to write a will - or buy a house or a car or undertake a mortgage or other loan without a guarantor or a guardian as a co-signatory.
    Yes, that's right.
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Wechner View Post
    Just as well we don't have "your" democracy.
    Well, at least that statement is something we can agree on. I wouldn't want a democratic system defined by a neo-fascist scumbag. You wouldn't want one defined by a liberal atheist copy-editor. So be it.
    "liberal atheist?" you are really full of yourself.
     

  36. #35  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,585
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Wechner View Post
    Well, at least that statement is something we can agree on. I wouldn't want a democratic system defined by a neo-fascist scumbag. You wouldn't want one defined by a liberal atheist copy-editor. So be it.
    "liberal atheist?" you are really full of yourself.[/QUOTE]

    Maybe. But we can agree that you are a neo-fascist scumbag?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Wechner View Post
    Well, at least that statement is something we can agree on. I wouldn't want a democratic system defined by a neo-fascist scumbag. You wouldn't want one defined by a liberal atheist copy-editor. So be it.
    "liberal atheist?" you are really full of yourself.
    Maybe. But we can agree that you are a neo-fascist scumbag?[/QUOTE]

    No we can't, I am a communist and maybe a scumbag if it is defined by Alan Jones.
     

  38. #37  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,318
    Knock off the name calling....


    --
    Edward, where your idea breaks down is people have remarkable abilities to compartmentalize personal beliefs, no matter how nuts they might be, from other wise perfectly clear and rational thoughts they have. If for example I'm voting for a representative, who's most decisions are going to be about how to prioritize what roads get resurfaces, the pending tax incentive for new businesses in my town, or consider a law about how long Romney signs will be allowed to stay on people's lawns--well you see I don't give a damn if they think their church cracker turns into Christ--or they wait an extra five minutes when a black cat crossed their path. I'm voting for their rational side.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  39. #38  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    The problem with using religion as the "un-sound mind" test is that it can easily throw false positives. A person of fully sound mind raised by a religious family in a community full of insane religious nut jobs might - for fully sound-minded, rational, reasons - decide to profess belief in the religion even though they don't actually believe one word of it.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Wechner View Post
    I am of the opinion that religious people should not have the right to vote and I am interested in any opinion for or against my case. I did document my case in the following blog, “the Right to Vote” http://edwardwechner10.blogspot.com.au/ and would appreciate any comment on it.

    Added 11-20-2012,

    When I am alone, I have been a 100% atheist since I was 17 years old. But until recently, I have always respected peoples religious beliefs.
    I talk about God with people like a believer, and I get (highly) spiritual at times. But with time people like me/us, learn to attack God, and Gods believers.

    At this moment I feel, that it is (most) of the worlds religious (leaders), that are causing most of the problems, that I/we despise and hate.



    (Edited to make accurate, by Stranges comments.)

    I see your point. 90?% of religious people are not even smart enough, to comprehend their own holy books. And they are led by insane, crazy, and/or criminal priests.

    Jesus gave everything he owned to the poor, and his camel parable explained, that rich men can rarely get into Heaven. But 90?% of Christians do not follow the words of Jesus, they follow the words of their immoral idiot leaders. Look at the crusades, where did Jesus say to cut off peoples heads and arms with swords? Or look at Europes early church that tortured people.

    Today in America many priests buy their (own) private jet airplanes, with church money. Many of these priests do not even believe in God, they are con-artists. While their followers believe that God talks to these men.

    Or the fact that 1 piece of the Popes jewelry, costs more money, than everything I own. With the camel parable, its ironic that the Pope is one of the richest men on Earth.

    Then Americas religious people say GW Bush was (Gods) chosen president. While he gave money and help to the rich, and took money and help from the poor. He attacked Iraq for Americas rich, and killed 100,000 innocent Iraqi people. But Americas religious people believe GW Bush, did the will of God.

    Religious people are dangerous. Many Christians want Arab terrorists, to set off nuclear weapons, to fulfill the words of the Bible. They want Arabs to kill everyone on Earth, so they can see Jesus.

    But I think the enemy here is (organized) religion. Even I can be a spiritual person.


    Atheists should come together as group.

    And athiests should keep a very close eye, on Americas Christian Republican party. Greedy CEO's are the priests in this political party cult. Their CEO priests have brainwashed their Christian followers, to love war, not feed hungry children, kill the poor by taking away their health insurance, ex.ex.ex. x 100.

    This republican religious cult literally kills and starves the poor, while they help, worship, and protect the rich. Heres some of their phrases, "the rich made all the right choices", "the poor made the wrong choices", "its not a government leaders responsibility to care for the poor, or feed hungry children", "The rich should have lower tax rates than regular people." Americas Christians are spiritually led by greedy rich CEO's. Americans republican Christians no longer follow the Bible, they follow the words of these CEO's. (literally)

    I hope a religious cult is not running your country

    I recently watched a documentary called "Religious" by Bill Maher on Netflix. It showed how dangerous religious people are. It was a good/great documentary. It explains how 16% of Americans are not religious. And how 16% is a huge amount of votes, to effect politics. But non-religious people dont come together as a group. And when I think about where Americas republican CEO (priests), could take their Christian followers, IT SCARES ME.

    I tried to find a free to watch link to the documentary, but all the links were taken down. But you may be able to watch it outside the USA.

    Heres the last 5 minutes. But it may not make 100% full sense, unless you watch the whole documentary.

    Last 5 Minutes of Bill Maher's Religulous - YouTube


    Like I said, I can be a highly spiritual person, but I think we need to break up organized religion.
    Last edited by chad; November 21st, 2012 at 04:33 AM.
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Wechner View Post
    I am of the opinion that religious people should not have the right to vote and I am interested in any opinion for or against my case. I did document my case in the following blog, “the Right to Vote” http://edwardwechner10.blogspot.com.au/ and would appreciate any comment on it.

    I see your point. 99% of religious people are not even smart enough, to comprehend their own holy books. They are (highly) social primates in a cult group. And they are led by insane, crazy, and/or criminal priests.


    Last 5 Minutes of Bill Maher's Religulous - YouTube

    Thanks for you supporting words. We both like Bill Maher's movie Religulous, in fact I did buy a copy of it and looked at it more than once. There are lots of down to earth, common sense, intelligent people in America and I have no doubt at all that they will win the battle against the moronic religious masses.
     

  42. #41  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    I enjoyed Religulous, as well. Also, when Maher and MacFarlane get together...

    So, why do we disagree on denying a large group of people the right to vote?

    It's not your world. Or mine. Even if they are wrong about many things, we share this world with eachother. We cannot exclude large groups of people, even if we find their ideas totally warped.
    Strange likes this.
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    I enjoyed Religulous, as well. Also, when Maher and MacFarlane get together...

    So, why do we disagree on denying a large group of people the right to vote?

    It's not your world. Or mine. Even if they are wrong about many things, we share this world with eachother. We cannot exclude large groups of people, even if we find their ideas totally warped.
    I have no problem sharing this world with religious people, my brother is religious. I also like to share the world with animals and do like them a lot. What I do oppose is that religious people do run our countries.
     

  44. #43  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    So do I. That's why I vote. Thankfully, they haven't tried to pass a law: "Atheists cannot vote."
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Wechner View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Wechner View Post
    I am of the opinion that religious people should not have the right to vote and I am interested in any opinion for or against my case. I did document my case in the following blog, “the Right to Vote” http://edwardwechner10.blogspot.com.au/ and would appreciate any comment on it.

    I see your point. 99% of religious people are not even smart enough, to comprehend their own holy books. They are (highly) social primates in a cult group. And they are led by insane, crazy, and/or criminal priests.


    Last 5 Minutes of Bill Maher's Religulous - YouTube

    Thanks for you supporting words. We both like Bill Maher's movie Religulous, in fact I did buy a copy of it and looked at it more than once. There are lots of down to earth, common sense, intelligent people in America and I have no doubt at all that they will win the battle against the moronic religious masses.


    I hope you are correct about your optimism, for Americas political future.
    But I believe that the majority of America, may soon fall into the "Christian" republican party.

    I did not read your blog about this subject yet, but I hope one day I will.

    Chad.
    Last edited by chad; November 19th, 2012 at 02:12 AM.
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post

    It's not your world. Or mine. Even if they are wrong about many things, we share this world with eachother. We cannot exclude large groups of people, even if we find their ideas totally warped.
    I am forced to agree with your above statement. For instance my mother is religious. And I would never try, to take away her voting rights.

    But Edward Wechner made this statement,

    "I am happy to live with democracy as is and the current voting laws, but the voting right is only given to persons with "sound mind" and no "criminal convictions". Religious people just don't meet these conditions and we should apply the law to the letter."

    But I am forced to agree with that statement as well.

    Have a great night/day,
    Chad.
    Edward Wechner likes this.
     

  47. #46  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    I am forced to agree with your above statement. For instance my mother is religious. And I would never try, to take away her voting rights.

    But Edward Wechner made this statement,

    "I am happy to live with democracy as is and the current voting laws, but the voting right is only given to persons with "sound mind" and no "criminal convictions". Religious people just don't meet these conditions and we should apply the law to the letter."

    And I am forced to agree with that statement as well.
    This is because it is galling to think that you must support someone's right to say something you totally disagree with when it can have a very direct impact on your own life.
    This one is touchy because these other voters make a difference.

    For example, let's take Big Gay Neil who loves his partner, Big Gay Bob.
    So, Neil and Bob live as a happy couple for 30 years. Then Bob has the audacity to allow himself to be hit by a drunken driver, get into the I.C.U. and head merrily down the road toward death.
    Big Gay Neil, is not allowed to visit Big Gay Bob because they were never Married. He's not his legal husband. Maybe months of torment go by with this, then Bob keels over and croaks and now, the state takes possession of the estate because Neil has no legal entitlement to the spouse's property. Sentimental items get auctioned off.
    Fact is, many fundies will fight tooth and nail to allow this type of thing to happen. They see Big Gay Neil and Bob's marriage as against God, somehow. Where do they get off telling others how to live with such intimate details of their lives?

    It's a matter of principle. I disagree with them restricting freedom.

    If I restrict their freedom, too- then that only makes me just as bad as them.

    You cannot oppress people when you disagree over politics, no matter how right you think they are. Educate as many people as you can. But if you oppress...

    To quote Walt Kelly's Pogo;

    Last edited by Neverfly; November 19th, 2012 at 02:37 AM.
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    I am forced to agree with your above statement. For instance my mother is religious. And I would never try, to take away her voting rights.

    But Edward Wechner made this statement,

    "I am happy to live with democracy as is and the current voting laws, but the voting right is only given to persons with "sound mind" and no "criminal convictions". Religious people just don't meet these conditions and we should apply the law to the letter."

    And I am forced to agree with that statement as well.
    This is because it is galling to think that you must support someone's right to say something you totally disagree with when it can have a very direct impact on your own life.
    This one is touchy because these other voters make a difference.

    For example, let's take Big Gay Neil who loves his partner, Big Gay Bob.
    So, Neil and Bob live as a happy couple for 30 years. Then Bob has the audacity to allow himself to be hit by a drunken driver, get into the I.C.U. and head merrily down the road toward death.
    Big Gay Neil, is not allowed to visit Big Gay Bob because they were never Married. He's not his legal husband. Maybe months of torment go by with this, then Bob keels over and croaks and now, the state takes possession of the estate because Neil has no legal entitlement to the spouse's property. Sentimental items get auctioned off.
    Fact is, many fundies will fight tooth and nail to allow this type of thing to happen. They see Big Gay Neil and Bob's marriage as against God, somehow. Where do they get off telling others how to live with such intimate details of their lives?

    It's a matter of principle. I disagree with them restricting freedom.

    If I restrict their freedom, too- then that only makes me just as bad as them.

    You cannot oppress people when you disagree over politics, no matter how right you think they are. Educate as many people as you can. But if you oppress...

    It appears that American law supports your statements. US law states "mentally retarded/insane people are allowed to vote."
    But I think this thread, is also trying to touch on a larger issue.

    How do (you) feel about the rights of the most insane Arab countries?
    Or do you think its OK for this entire planet to be ruled by insane cults?

    Or do your beliefs grant freedom, to Christians and Muslims to kill everyone on Earth, on behalf of a talking snake, from the Garden of Eden?

    I fully see the points you are trying to make. And I greatly admire your beliefs, of equality and freedom.

    But I feel your beliefs say its OK, for people who believe reptiles, are able to have verbal conversations with humans, to be the supreme leaders of this planet.
    Don't you think your family would be safer, if this planet was run by scientists. Rather than people who think that snakes have verbal conversations with people?

    Call be crazy, but I believe the survival and safety of the human species, is more important than cult rights.
    Last edited by chad; November 19th, 2012 at 03:21 AM.
    Edward Wechner likes this.
     

  49. #48  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    How do (you) feel about the rights of the most insane Arab countries?
    I believe they are doing them, we are doing us.
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Do you think its OK for this entire planet to be ruled by insane cults?
    No.
    But if the majority of the world goes that way, that's the way it will go. I can fight back, let myself be heard, but outnumbered is outnumbered. I'd probably, if such a political catastrophe actually occured, end up dead. See below.

    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Or do your beliefs grant freedom, to Christians and Muslims to kill everyone on Earth, on behalf of a talking snake, from the Garden of Eden?
    Yes, pretty much, if you sum it up that way. It also would grant me the rights to defend myself from any of them.
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    But I feel your beliefs say its OK, for people who believe reptiles, are able to have verbal conversations with humans, to be the leaders of this planet.
    If they are chosen by the majority.
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Don't you think your family would be safer, if this planet was run by scientists. Rather than people who think snakes/reptiles, have verbal conversations with people?
    I think everyone might be much better off. But what allows me to tell the majority that they are stupid and they need me to think for them?
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Call be crazy, but I believe the survival and safety of the human species, is more important than cult rights.
    An interesting point and why I said, "See below" up above.

    It's evolution.

    This is our state- we evolved this way. Pareidolia isn't magic, it's an evolved trait.
    Many people find comfort in religion, they find it better to have all the answers (God did it) than to accept that there are scary unknowns. They trust a leader guided by a Perfect Higher Power more than one that is human.

    We evolved this way. I don't like it. I also don't like that we evolved with only two arms or bad breath and an anus that excretes stuff unpleasant. It sucks.

    But if our evolution has led to a group that is more inclined toward superstition and political-religions, then that is the way it is and the best I can offer the world is martyrdom in fighting against their oppression as hard as I can before the overwhelming numbers take me out and close a chapter on evolution.
    Critical thinking was a disadvantage in this apocalyptic scenario that you hint at.

    Fortunately, most religious people are far more moderate than that.

    The ones that would impose Holy Deaths are, in fact, the minority.
     

  50. #49  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Many people find comfort in religion, they find it better to have all the answers (God did it) than to accept that there are scary unknowns.
    Of course, I see that as introducing unnecessary mysterious beings into a world that's already filled to bursting with wonders and mysteries. I prefer to take them neat, not diluted or obscured by other mysteries.
    Neverfly likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    [QUOTE=Neverfly;367373]
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post

    It's evolution.

    This is our state- we evolved this way. Pareidolia isn't magic, it's an evolved trait.
    Many people find comfort in religion, they find it better to have all the answers (God did it) than to accept that there are scary unknowns. They trust a leader guided by a Perfect Higher Power more than one that is human.

    We evolved this way. I don't like it. I also don't like that we evolved with only two arms or bad breath and an anus that excretes stuff unpleasant. It sucks.

    But if our evolution has led to a group that is more inclined toward superstition and political-religions, then that is the way it is and the best I can offer the world is martyrdom in fighting against their oppression as hard as I can before the overwhelming numbers take me out and close a chapter on evolution.
    Critical thinking was a disadvantage in this apocalyptic scenario that you hint at.

    Fortunately, most religious people are far more moderate than that.

    The ones that would impose Holy Deaths are, in fact, the minority.


    Why am I arguing with you?
    Your basically just saying, you agree with me on many issues.
    And then you go on to say, that you want everyone to have equal rights.

    I'm sorry if I offended you.

    Take care of yourself,
    Chad.
     

  52. #51  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Why the hell am I arguing with you?
    I ask everyone why they do that. I dunno, I guess they'll come around eventually...

    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Your basically just saying, you agree with me on many issues.
    And then you go on to say, that you want everyone to have equal rights.
    I don't believe everyone is equal. I really don't. I believe in fair, though.
    Rights aren't absolute. They are granted by any society. My own belief is that as many "rights" should be granted as possible. From there, they can only lose them. Or give them up by their own accord...
    We won't all be equals but we'll be treated as equals, which allows for Fair consideration for all sides.
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    I'm sorry if I offended you.
    You didn't so try harder next time.

    If needs be, I can provide tips and pointers as to the best way to get under my skin.
     

  53. #52  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,585
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    I see your point. 99% of religious people are not even smart enough, to comprehend their own holy books. They are (highly) social primates in a cult group. And they are led by insane, crazy, and/or criminal priests.
    This is a made-up "fact" used to support your personal belief system. Should people who make up statistics to support their bigotry and hatred be allowed to vote? Yes, sadly, of course they should.

    This is also the reason why I should stop reading the politics forum as, even on a science forum, it is full of nonsense like this.

    Atheists should come together as group.
    Not if it includes people like you. Thanks, but I don't want to join your personal cult of hatred of people with different views.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    [QUOTE=Neverfly;367380]
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    I'm sorry if I offended you.
    You didn't so try harder next time.

    If needs be, I can provide tips and pointers as to the best way to get under my skin.


    Perhaps I will. And I don't want any pointers, I will figure them out myself.

    Have a good one,
    Chad.
     

  55. #54  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Perhaps I will. And I don't want any pointers, I will figure them out myself.
    My evil plot to give the wrong pointers has backfired.

    Foiled again...
     

  56. #55  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,585
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Or do your beliefs grant freedom, to Christians and Muslims to kill everyone on Earth, on behalf of a talking snake, from the Garden of Eden?
    Should we grant freedoms to people who make stupid and baseless strawman arguments? (Yes, of course we should.)

    Of course they don't have the right to kill anyone. But they do have the right to vote.

    I fully see the points you are trying to make. And I greatly admire your beliefs, of equality and freedom.
    Then why don't you share them? What makes you so superior that you are allowed to decide who gets to vote? You might start of by withdrawing the vote from people you consider to be religious (does that include Buddhists?) but then you might want to remove the vote from gypsies. And then capitalists. And republicans. And then people who support a different football team. And then ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Martin Niemöller
    First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out -- Because I was not a Socialist.

    Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out -- Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out -- Because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    I see your point. 99% of religious people are not even smart enough, to comprehend their own holy books. They are (highly) social primates in a cult group. And they are led by insane, crazy, and/or criminal priests.
    This is a made-up "fact" used to support your personal belief system. Should people who make up statistics to support their bigotry and hatred be allowed to vote? Yes, sadly, of course they should.

    This is also the reason why I should stop reading the politics forum as, even on a science forum, it is full of nonsense like this.

    Atheists should come together as group.
    Not if it includes people like you. Thanks, but I don't want to join your personal cult of hatred of people with different views.

    Your wrong, but it was an un-thought, and out of the air figure though.
    What do you think the correct figure is, for Christians who don't follow the teachings of Jesus?

    And its not nonsense, its religion causing death and destruction. Like when a Muslim terrorist flies an airplane into a building, in the name of God. Or when a Christian desires Arab's to kill everyone on Earth, in the name of God.

    I always knew you would never join my group. Because you are unable to see the big picture.
    But I know that you are a person of extremely high morals.

    And your not joining my cult. I guess you will stay in your current cult. The "God can make people kill everyone on Earth, and I could care less cult."

    I really love talking to you and Skeptic.

    Take care of yourself,
    Chad.

    It was (really) nice crossing paths with you again. I wish you well. Chad.
     

  58. #57  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    And your not joining my cult. I guess you will stay in your current cult. The "God can make people kill everyone on Earth, and I could care less cult."
    I want to zero in on this bit.
    It may be directed solely at that member, but even so, it deserves some confrontation.

    I care. It bothers me to admit it- maybe my monkeysphere is broken. But I care.

    I cannot, however, force others to care. I can try to convince them and some people are just beyond convincing, usually because they hold a lifelong belief that won't allow for the changing of ones mind.
    Just because someone does not agree with suppression does not mean they do not care. It means that suppression and oppression is abhorrent who matter who does it.
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Or do your beliefs grant freedom, to Christians and Muslims to kill everyone on Earth, on behalf of a talking snake, from the Garden of Eden?
    Should we grant freedoms to people who make stupid and baseless strawman arguments? (Yes, of course we should.)

    Of course they don't have the right to kill anyone. But they do have the right to vote.

    I fully see the points you are trying to make. And I greatly admire your beliefs, of equality and freedom.
    Then why don't you share them? What makes you so superior that you are allowed to decide who gets to vote? You might start of by withdrawing the vote from people you consider to be religious (does that include Buddhists?) but then you might want to remove the vote from gypsies. And then capitalists. And republicans. And then people who support a different football team. And then ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Martin Niemöller
    First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out -- Because I was not a Socialist.

    Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out -- Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out -- Because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me.


    Earlier in this thread I said things, for the author of this thread, in order to extend the life of this thread. You have brought it to my attention that it was a mistake. And because of that mistake you are rightfully attacking me, for statements of withholding voter rights.

    I said in one of my earlier posts here, that I felt this thread has deeper issues. But I now know that does not change my statements, that you are responding to now.

    Let me say this Strange, my Mother is Religious, and I would never try to take away her right to vote. And in the real world I would not try to take away your right to vote. I hope you at least believe the one about my Mother.

    I must have really looked like a loyal citizen of the USSR here, and you brought this to my attention, thanks.

    I know we have different views, but I promise I dont like the USSR, and other countries like that.

    From now on I will never try to extend a thread like I did here. It was I who was in a fantasy world here.

    And about the insults I post to you. Its men like you and Skeptic that bring that out in me, and I so much enjoy the person you two turn me into, thank you. And if my responses ever make you feel bad, please tell me and I will stop.

    It seems you just keep on teaching me lessons. I hope you dont get upset in the process.

    Chad.
    Last edited by chad; November 19th, 2012 at 05:23 AM.
     

  60. #59  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,585
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Your wrong, but it was an un-thought, and out of the air figure though.
    So, I am right: you just made up data to support your case.

    What do you think the correct figure is, for Christians who don't follow the teachings of Jesus?
    I have no idea (and I don't really care). Maybe it is about the same as atheists who do follow the teachings of Jesus. I am particularly fond of the Sermon on the Mount, which is why I will never wear those little stickers/badges they give you when you give money to someone collecting for charity.

    And its not nonsense, its religion causing death and destruction.
    It is more than a little naive to blame all death and destruction on religion.

    What about wars over territory or resources? Do you want to blame those on religion as well? What about religious organizations that fight for peace? What about people who are pacifists out of religious conviction (and may be imprisoned or killed for this)?

    I always knew you would never join my group. Because you are unable to see the big picture.
    The "big picture" that you see appears to be largely in your imagination.

    I guess you will stay in your current cult. The "God can make people kill everyone on Earth, and I could care less cult."
    Another pathetic strawman and an almost libellous attempt to put words in my mouth.

    Did I say I thought it was OK for "God can make people kill everyone on Earth"? Did I say, "I could care less"? No. So stop lying to defend your bigoted position.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    And your not joining my cult. I guess you will stay in your current cult. The "God can make people kill everyone on Earth, and I could care less cult."
    I want to zero in on this bit.
    It may be directed solely at that member, but even so, it deserves some confrontation.

    I care. It bothers me to admit it- maybe my monkeysphere is broken. But I care.

    I cannot, however, force others to care. I can try to convince them and some people are just beyond convincing, usually because they hold a lifelong belief that won't allow for the changing of ones mind.
    Just because someone does not agree with suppression does not mean they do not care. It means that suppression and oppression is abhorrent who matter who does it.



    You are confusing "rights" and "democracy."
    Your thinking about democracy, and in the process your saying "members of a democracy, have the right to cause a nuclear war, and kill everyone on Earth" And you say its OK.

    I can think of no better thing than democracy, who wants a dictator?

    But when Christian members of a democracy, want a nuclear war to kill everyone on Earth, to fulfill Bible verses, you want them to have voter rights.
    What about the rights of all the people who would be killed in that nuclear war?

    Then your saying that Christians, who want an all life ending nuclear war, have the right to vote for a politician, who also want an all life ending nuclear war.

    I know the purpose of democracy is freedom. But I always thought a democracy, was also there to keep people safe.


    We have Muslims that are about to have biological and nuclear weapons, and they want to kill just about all non-Muslims.
    And at the same time we have Christians who want their attack.


    Please answer these 2 questions,

    Should a Christian, who desires a nuclear war to kill everyone on Earth, have voter rights?
    Should a Christian politician, who desires a nuclear war to kill everyone on Earth, have the right to be a leader?
    Last edited by chad; November 20th, 2012 at 03:11 AM.
     

  62. #61  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,585
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Your thinking about democracy, and in the process your saying "members of a democracy, have the right to cause a nuclear war, and kill all life on Earth" And you say its OK.
    If, on the planet you live on (which appears to be very different from mine), there are actually a majority of people who want this, then you might just have to put up with it.

    To take it to the extreme, if 100% of the population wanted this, then why shouldn't they do it.

    On the other hand, this does demonstrate one problem with democracy (I am not a huge fan of the concept) which is why most countries actually have a system of representative government. There are many things that the population as a whole would vote for that the government chooses not to do because they are (mainly) rational human beings.

    For example, at the risk of raising another contentious issue, European countries do not have the death penalty. Surveys have shown that, in some cases, the majority of the population are in favour of capital punishment. However, governments take into account things like evidence and human rights (rather than blood lust) and so just ignore what the majority want. Entirely reasonable, IMHO.
    John Galt likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
     

  63. #62  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    I can think of no better thing than democracy, who wants a dictator?
    Singapore ranks third in the world on GDP per capita, according to the IMF. In 1970 it was a third world country reeling from the loss of one third of its GDP because of the withdrawal of the British military bases there. The transition from then till now was accomplished via the de facto dictatorship of Lee Kuan Yew. Informed benevolent dictatorship is arguably the best form of government.
    Last edited by John Galt; November 19th, 2012 at 08:08 AM. Reason: correct sloppy typing
    Strange likes this.
     

  64. #63  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    It is more than a little naive to blame all death and destruction on religion.
    That's a fine point, except he did not do so. He blamed religion for influencing death and destruction but did not claim it causes all death and destruction. Which leads to this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    an almost libellous attempt to put words in my mouth.
    Interesting...
    Let's move on to this:
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post

    On the other hand, this does demonstrate one problem with democracy (I am not a huge fan of the concept)

    For example, at the risk of raising another contentious issue, European countries do not have the death penalty. Surveys have shown that, in some cases, the majority of the population are in favour of capital punishment. However, governments take into account things like evidence and human rights (rather than blood lust) and so just ignore what the majority want. Entirely reasonable, IMHO.
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Informed benevolent dictatorship is arguably the best form of government.
    And this post which you put a "like" on.

    So, why are you arguing and calling him a bigot?
    Look, if an "informed dictatorship" is best, then where, exactly, is the bigotry in denying the Vote?
     

  65. #64  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,380
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Wechner View Post
    I am of the opinion that religious people should not have the right to vote and I am interested in any opinion for or against my case. I did document my case in the following blog, “the Right to Vote” http://edwardwechner10.blogspot.com.au/ and would appreciate any comment on it.
    The way I see things is pretty simple really, we all have to live by rules. Because we have to live by rules they have to be agreed on somehow and whether we like it or not we have representative governments to make these rules. So we should get a say in who that government should be.

    Now to me it doesn't matter who we are we are all entitled to our say, or vote, regardless of religion, race, income bracket, criminal record or anything else etc..., we all live by the same rules therefore we should all get that same say in choosing who makes them, that's fair.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
     

  66. #65  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    You are confusing "rights" and "democracy."
    Your thinking about democracy, and in the process your saying "members of a democracy, have the right to cause a nuclear war, and kill all life on Earth" And you say its OK.
    In a democracy, the citizens vote.

    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    I can think of no better thing than democracy, who wants a dictator?
    I certainly don't. Frankly, a democracy, by far, pushes my limits on how much government I can stand.

    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    But when Christian members of a democracy, want a nuclear war to kill everyone on Earth, to fulfill Bible verses, you want them to have voter rights.
    The nonsense here is: How many people are actually going for that? Forget Bill Maher's show, How many people are actually going for that?! Come on back down to reality, now.

    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Your saying that Christians, who want an all life ending nuclear war, have the right to vote for a politician, who also want an all life ending nuclear war.
    Reality check: However many "Christians" want an all life ending war and however many politicians want the same is by far a very, very few number.
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Please answer these 2 questions,

    Should a Christian, who wants a nuclear war to kill all life on Earth, have voter rights?
    Should a Christian politician, who wants a nuclear war to kill all life on Earth, have the right to be a leader?
    Yes.
    Now, if any of those had substantial numbers, I might feel differently. But you're totally exaggerating your case, at this point.
     

  67. #66  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,380
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    I certainly don't. Frankly, a democracy, by far, pushes my limits on how much government I can stand.
    I guess that's probarbly partially why I like the Australian idea of compulsory voting. Normally if I didn't vote they'd chalk it up to voter apathy, under a compulsory voting system you would actually have a way of sticking two fingers up against the political establishment by simply not voting.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
     

  68. #67  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    I certainly don't. Frankly, a democracy, by far, pushes my limits on how much government I can stand.
    I guess that's probarbly partially why I like the Australian idea of compulsory voting. Normally if I didn't vote they'd chalk it up to voter apathy, under a compulsory voting system you would actually have a way of sticking two fingers up against the political establishment by simply not voting.
    You may need to give me more detail on that- google is only helping so much...
     

  69. #68  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,585
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Look, if an "informed dictatorship" is best, then where, exactly, is the bigotry in denying the Vote?
    If you deny everyone the vote then there is no bigotry. If you give everyone the vote then there is no bigotry.

    If you deny some people the vote because you don't like some of the things they believe in, or the colour of their hair, then that is bigotry. And, arguably, worse than a dictatorship.

    Why should the OP, Chad, whoever have the right to decide who is or is not eligible to vote?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
     

  70. #69  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,585
    The other problem with democracy is the pretence that it is somehow "fair" or represents the wishes of the majority. There is no fair voting system; they are all just unfair in different ways.

    And why should the "majority" get to impose their views on the remainder of the population (whether that is 1% or 49.9%)?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
     

  71. #70  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    If you deny everyone the vote then there is no bigotry. If you give everyone the vote then there is no bigotry.

    If you deny some people the vote because you don't like some of the things they believe in, or the colour of their hair, then that is bigotry. And, arguably, worse than a dictatorship.
    Good rebuttal.
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    The other problem with democracy is the pretence that it is somehow "fair" or represents the wishes of the majority. There is no fair voting system; they are all just unfair in different ways.

    And why should the "majority" get to impose their views on the remainder of the population (whether that is 1% or 49.9%)?
    Because that majority isn't going to be willing to go along with the minority telling them how to live, anymore than I'm keen on one dictator telling myself/the majority how to live. This is why the U.S. government was intended to be run with checks and balances, popular vote and a regular changing out of leaders. Sadly, in modern times...

    Now, I've never understood the Electoral college votes or how that's fair at all.
    This right here, is probably a deeper difference in opinion on politics than this topic really allows for. I started it.
     

  72. #71  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Wechner View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Edward, that's one of the most bigoted things I've seen posted here.
    It would be helpful if you would indicate where you see the bigotry.

    Other people see it as, well-written, clear and logical.
    Do you think that the religious people will meekly submit to being ruled by atheists, or do you think you might start a civil war? I think you are the one who is insane and should lose the right to vote.
     

  73. #72  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Normally if I didn't vote they'd chalk it up to voter apathy, under a compulsory voting system you would actually have a way of sticking two fingers up against the political establishment by simply not voting.
    We call it compulsory voting, but it's not really. You do have to show up or get a postal or absentee vote, but once you get the ballot paper in your hands, nobody can make you fill it in. No-one knows that you wrote nothing at all on it or that you wrote something silly or offensive on it. They give you a ballot paper, you return a 'completed' ballot paper. That's it.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Your wrong, but it was an un-thought, and out of the air figure though.
    So, I am right: you just made up data to support your case.

    What do you think the correct figure is, for Christians who don't follow the teachings of Jesus?
    I have no idea (and I don't really care). Maybe it is about the same as atheists who do follow the teachings of Jesus. I am particularly fond of the Sermon on the Mount, which is why I will never wear those little stickers/badges they give you when you give money to someone collecting for charity.

    And its not nonsense, its religion causing death and destruction.
    It is more than a little naive to blame all death and destruction on religion.

    What about wars over territory or resources? Do you want to blame those on religion as well? What about religious organizations that fight for peace? What about people who are pacifists out of religious conviction (and may be imprisoned or killed for this)?

    I should not have posted such an un-thought figure like I did.

    What percentage of Christians follow the words of the Bible?

    Jesus gave everything he owned to the poor.
    He lived his life to help the poor.
    He said "pick up your cross and follow me." (This means to let the world <literally> torture and kill you.)

    What percentage of Christians today, gave everything they owned to the poor, spend most of their time helping the poor, and search for a death like Jesus had?

    My personal feeling is 90?% of Christians do not follow the teachings of Jesus. I will edit my post.


    You spoke of religion not causing many wars.

    But America is in a war with Afghanistan right now, because of peoples beliefs in God.
    All of the current Muslim terrorist attacks, are because of peoples beliefs in God.
    And Israel's belief in God, and taking land like their holy books tell them too, is fueling all of the above wars.

    And if you turn on your TV tonight, and watch tonight's world news, you will find there's a new war/battle going on, because of peoples beliefs in God.
    (I believe a new round of rocket bombs attacks, are been shot into Israel at this moment, because of Israels and Muslims beliefs in God.
     

  75. #74  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,585
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    You spoke of religion not causing many wars.
    No I didn't.

    But America is in a war with Afghanistan right now, because of peoples beliefs in God.
    Or maybe to protect their oil interests?

    All of the current Muslim terrorist attacks, are because of peoples beliefs in God.
    Or resentment of foreign political influence in their countries?

    And Israel's belief in God, and taking land like their holy books tell them too, is fueling all of the above wars.
    That I might agree with

    And if you turn on your TV tonight, and watch tonight's world news, you will find there's a new war/battle going on, because of peoples beliefs in God.
    Or, as you say, because someone stole their land?

    It just isn't as simple as "because of God".
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    [QUOTE=Neverfly;367431]
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post


    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    But when Christian members of a democracy, want a nuclear war to kill everyone on Earth, to fulfill Bible verses, you want them to have voter rights.
    The nonsense here is: How many people are actually going for that? Forget Bill Maher's show, How many people are actually going for that?! Come on back down to reality, now.

    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Your saying that Christians, who want an all life ending nuclear war, have the right to vote for a politician, who also want an all life ending nuclear war.
    Reality check: However many "Christians" want an all life ending war and however many politicians want the same is by far a very, very few number.
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Please answer these 2 questions,

    Should a Christian, who wants a nuclear war to kill all life on Earth, have voter rights?
    Should a Christian politician, who wants a nuclear war to kill all life on Earth, have the right to be a leader?
    Yes.
    Now, if any of those had substantial numbers, I might feel differently. But you're totally exaggerating your case, at this point.


    I originally said "Many Christians want a nuclear war". But a more accurate statement is "Many Christians desire a nuclear war."

    Perhaps I am (not) exaggerating the dangers of this.

    A large percentage of Christians, want the war in the book of Revelation, to happen in their life time. They say the signs of the book of Revelation, are all around us today.


    But perhaps (most) Christians believe, their Bible tells them that a huge war will happen, and this war will kill, most to all life on this planet. And they think its Gods will for this war to happen. And when you think something is Gods will, will you try to stop it?

    The following link shows many of the above people, I am speaking about.

    Last 5 Minutes of Bill Maher's Religulous - YouTube



    As you read this, radical Muslims are on their way, to getting nuclear and biological weapons. And they want to kill huge amounts of non-Muslims.

    Then think about how these radical Muslims, live in the same area, that the Bible says this huge war will happen.

    To give a Christian who desires, or thinks that the war in the book of Revelation is OK, the right to vote or be a leader. It is (not) democracy, it is giving insane fantasy world cult members rights.


    I would rather have people who believe in Santa Claus, voting and running America, rather than Christians who believe in the war of the book of Revelation. These Christians believe its Gods will, for there to be a huge war that kills, most to all life on this planet.

    Perhaps people who believe in Santa Claus are nuts, but at least the don't think a war, to kill most to all life on this planet is Gods will.
     

  77. #76  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Chad, think about the Cold War a bit... and who was in charge during most of it. If this was something we (as a general people) wanted, it would have happened. It did not happen, in fact, it was shunned and abhorred. In spite of many claimed 'close calls,' I actually believe that no one would have been very quick to push dem lil buttons.

    Now, there are certain Islamist and Extremists out there. But they, by far, do not make the majority and they tend to stand apart- act alone.

    I like Bill Maher too, but frankly, you're giving the man a bit too much credit.
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    You spoke of religion not causing many wars.
    No I didn't.

    But America is in a war with Afghanistan right now, because of peoples beliefs in God.
    Or maybe to protect their oil interests?

    All of the current Muslim terrorist attacks, are because of peoples beliefs in God.
    Or resentment of foreign political influence in their countries?

    And Israel's belief in God, and taking land like their holy books tell them too, is fueling all of the above wars.
    That I might agree with

    And if you turn on your TV tonight, and watch tonight's world news, you will find there's a new war/battle going on, because of peoples beliefs in God.
    Or, as you say, because someone stole their land?

    It just isn't as simple as "because of God".


    You gave me the impression, that religion did not cause enough wars, for anyone to be concerned about.

    (And America is in Iraq because of oil interests.) We are in Afghanistan because of God beliefs.

    Also Muslim terrorists that are currently attacking us, are doing suicide attacks, for God. They believe something like this, when they kill themselves for God, they will go to Heaven and have many wives there.


    And yes, resentment of foreign political influence in their countries, are also responsible for these terrorists attacks. But those are because of God too.

    God told Israel to take the land around them.
    Then God told America to protect Israel, because thats were Jesus is from.


    You said you might agree with Israel taking the land around them, and then you put up a smile?

    Why dont you go look at some pictures of war. Go look at some pictures of innocent men, women, and children laying dead in the streets. Instead of being some arm chair general in your living room, smiling about taking peoples land.

    I saw a 9 or 10 year old girl on tv tonight, speaking about how she is scared of a bomb killing her. And you sit in your comfortable living room and smile. You should go to a real life battle field, and smile when (you) are about to be killed.
    Last edited by chad; November 20th, 2012 at 02:26 AM.
     

  79. #78  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    To Chad and to Strange;

    I have a question for you both.

    Are people doing what they normally would do and simply using religion as an excuse or justification for doing what they want?
    Or...
    Is religion influencing impressionable young minds, adult minds and directly causing behaviors that would not ordinarily manifest?
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Chad, think about the Cold War a bit... and who was in charge during most of it. If this was something we (as a general people) wanted, it would have happened. It did not happen, in fact, it was shunned and abhorred. In spite of many claimed 'close calls,' I actually believe that no one would have been very quick to push dem lil buttons.

    Now, there are certain Islamist and Extremists out there. But they, by far, do not make the majority and they tend to stand apart- act alone.

    I like Bill Maher too, but frankly, you're giving the man a bit too much credit.

    What percentage of Christians, believe that it's Gods plan, for a huge war to happen in the future, and this war will kill most life on Earth?

    These Christians are expecting the biggest war ever, and they think its Gods will.


    Yes you are correct that most Christians, would not push the button to start that war.
    But most Christians subconscious minds, believe this war is the will of God.
    I see your points, but I personally feel these beliefs, are highly dangerous fantasies.


    "Be careful what you ask for because you just might get it."
    Unknown auther

    "Be careful what you set your heart upon, for it will surely be yours."
    James Baldwin

    "I write of the wish that comes true, for some reason, a terrifying concept."
    James M. Cain

    "Ambition is a Dead Sea fruit, and the greatest peril to the soul, is that one is likely to get precisely what he is seeking."
    Edward Dahlberg

    "Be careful what your dreaming, cause it some day may come true."
    Hal Ketchum.




    And I give Bill Maher credit for nothing, except for being a democrat.

    Chad.
    Last edited by chad; November 20th, 2012 at 03:03 AM.
     

  81. #80  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    What percentage of Christians, believe that it is Gods plan, for a huge war to happen in the future, and this war will kill most life on this planet?
    Previously, you asked "what percentage actually follow the doctrine and teachings?" You estimated it to be a very low number.

    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Yes you are correct that most Christians, would not push the button to start that war.
    But most Christians subconscious minds, believe this war is the will of God.
    I see your points, but I personally feel all of these beliefs, are highly dangerous fantasies.
    A very generalized statement. Unless you can support it with statistical figures... You may as well claim that Most People On the Internet Believe Nibiru will kill us all in 2012 (Hurry up you sluggish planet killer, you're gonna make a fool outta Nancy!)
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    To Chad and to Strange;

    I have a question for you both.

    Are people doing what they normally would do and simply using religion as an excuse or justification for doing what they want?
    Or...
    Is religion influencing impressionable young minds, adult minds and directly causing behaviors that would not ordinarily manifest?

    I believe people manipulate their holy books words, to get what they want.

    Like an American TV preacher who says "you have to sow to reap"
    He then explains, "you need to sow a seed of faith, and send me $1000. And you will reap a financial miracle, for sending me that money."

    I also believe Muslim extremists leaders, manipulate their holy words, to get their followers, to do what they want too.


    I think there may be more religious leader manipulation, than people realize.
    The early European priests used to do magic tricks, and they let their followers believe, those magic tricks were miracles from God.

    I saw a tv show were an American Indian priest, dammed a stream so it would stop flowing. Then he told his tribe the water would flow again the next day at noon. The next day at noon he un-dammed the stream, but he let everyone believe God made the water flow again.

    I also believe the early European church priests used their positions, in order to live with the comforts of wealthy people. Look at what remains of them, the Vatican.

    Perhaps religious leaders are the main cause of what is wrong with religion. After all they guide religion.

    Your average American Christian is a decent person. But they help purchase their preachers jet airplane. And then they vote for a republican.

    If American Christians were not led by republicans. And their jet set preachers were no longer around. And the Catholic church was replaced by normal churchs. Americas Christians would be a decent group of people.

    Just look how their republican leaders, have them against feeding hungry children, against helping the poor, and lovers of war.


    And perhaps if Muslims were led by honorable priests, they too would be a decent group of people. I have seen non-terrorist Muslims on tv, and they seem like very good people.


    If you wanna see Jesus' ways, you have to look for them in regular Christians on the street.

    I have always heard people say, I have no problem with God, I just hate organized religion. Now I know what they meant, and I agree with them.


    Sorry for not answering your questions better.
    Last edited by chad; November 20th, 2012 at 12:11 AM.
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    What percentage of Christians, believe that it is Gods plan, for a huge war to happen in the future, and this war will kill most life on this planet?
    Previously, you asked "what percentage actually follow the doctrine and teachings?" You estimated it to be a very low number.

    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Yes you are correct that most Christians, would not push the button to start that war.
    But most Christians subconscious minds, believe this war is the will of God.
    I see your points, but I personally feel all of these beliefs, are highly dangerous fantasies.
    A very generalized statement. Unless you can support it with statistical figures... You may as well claim that Most People On the Internet Believe Nibiru will kill us all in 2012 (Hurry up you sluggish planet killer, you're gonna make a fool outta Nancy!)
    The following link shows the people I am talking about.

    It shows a high level republican leader in Washington, who believe these things.

    It shows a famous American preacher speaking these things, huge numbers of Americans have heard just that single priest, say those things.

    Last 5 Minutes of Bill Maher's Religulous - YouTube


    Watch the famous priest in the link, you know damn well millions of Americans, have super strong beliefs of those things.

    You also know that a (HUGE) percentage of Christians, believe of the war in the book of Revelation.


    Would you say that at least 50% of Americans Christians, know about this huge war, and they believe it is the will of God?

    Huge amounts of American Christians believe those things.
     

  84. #83  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    I believe people manipulate their holy books words, to get what they want.
    Ok, I agree with this.

    So what happens if you take away religion?
    Rather than deny the vote to religious people, let's get rid of religion, entirely.
    What then? What's to stop them from manipulating politics to get what they want? In fact, don't they already do that?
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    I also believe Muslim extremists leaders, manipulate their holy words, to get their followers, to do what they want too.
    Interpretive Hadiths.
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Perhaps religious leaders are the main cause of what is wrong with religion. After all they guide religion.
    Therewill always be "evil" men. Maybe they will find refuge among the pious. Maybe among politics. Maybe among science forums. But in the end, they will always be around.
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Your average American Christian is a decent person. But they help purchase their preachers jet airplane. And then they vote for a republican.
    Considering that about half, maybe a little less than half of them vote democrat, you seem to have your assumptions off base, here. Democrats are not the Atheist Political Party. At All.
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    If American Christians were not led by republicans. And their jet set preachers were no longer around. And the Catholic church was replaced by normal churchs like Methodists or Baptists. Americas Christians would be a decent group of people.
    You clearly don't know much about Baptists!

    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    And perhaps if Muslims were led by honorable priests, they too would be a decent group of people. I have seen non-terrorist Muslims on tv, and they seem like very good people.
    By far, the vast, vast majority of them are not Islamists or terrorists.
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Sorry for not answering your questions better.
    Well, let's go back to your first answer; I believe the most important one:
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    I believe people manipulate their holy books words, to get what they want.
    There are some people that give themselves to God- so fully, that they will do anything that they believe he wants them to do, no matter how it compromises their principles.
    How numerous are those people? Wouldn't a more exact figure be more appropriate than an assumption?
    In my country, I say they are a very small minority. They are, as Maher and as you put it: Dangerous. But fortunately, they are few in number. They do not win the popular vote. That is why they resort to bombing instead of voting.
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    I believe people manipulate their holy books words, to get what they want.
    You said it best, right here. And it's not just the religious, troop. Atheists do this just as much, only they don't use religion to justify themselves. They usually will just give circular arguments. Human nature remains, it's why religion was invented by men in the first place.

    If you deny the vote to the religious, you must also deny the vote to the atheists than are shown to be deceptive. Irrational. Just because someone does not believe in God does not mean they are automatically sane.

    Take away religion, and violent people will just find a different validation for their behavior.

    My validation is the existence of "evil men." My violence is directed against them and not the average person and so- the average person is "ok" with that. I'm no different than the radical Islamist, though. I'm no better.
    But as long as my violence is directed at people like him, who direct it toward 'innocent people...' then the average person is supportive, (mostly) as a "necessary evil."

    I think you've not thought the position you've taken here all the way through. The actual behavior of human beings and what makes us tick.
    If you take away the right to vote, you make us all oppressors. You make us the "evil men." But more importantly, you also would remove an ally.
    You would remove a large portion of the population of Christians, Muslims and Catholics who vote against leaders of war.
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    The following link shows the people I am talking about.
    How many times do I gotta say it, Son?!
    You're pointing to a minority and declaring, "See the evil people!"
    Jeez, support it with statistical figures or get over this mental block, already.
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Wechner View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Edward, that's one of the most bigoted things I've seen posted here.
    It would be helpful if you would indicate where you see the bigotry.

    Other people see it as, well-written, clear and logical.
    Do you think that the religious people will meekly submit to being ruled by atheists, or do you think you might start a civil war? I think you are the one who is insane and should lose the right to vote.
    No, people should not meekly submit, and should never be ruled by atheists. We do not conquer or submit we have developed a method of how to resolve a disagreement between two parties, it is the court of law.

    The people that do judge who is right or wrong are highly qualified and we trust that they do the right thing, as far as humanly possible. We do not appoint unskilled and uneducated people to the position of a judge or a lawyer. You may argue that this is discrimination, everybody should have the right to become a judge, independent of qualifications. We don't believe that it is discrimination, we insist that people have the right skills for a given task. We also insist that the people that govern a country should have the right skills.

    You have not given me any indication so far as where you see the bigotry in my blog, but you do start to show your colours with your response. The thought of a civil war to resolve a dispute is isolated to extremists, we resolve disputes in a court of law.

    I am happy to listen to any argument against my blog, but I did not here any from you as yet. Let's start from the beginning, do you believe that is right that a sadistic pedophile should be in charge of school classes for six year old pupils? Do you believe it is right when hundreds of village people conduct a daily prayer processions to get a convicted criminal out of jail and try to put the blame of paedophilia onto the children. We trust that the court took the right decision and these people act in contempt of the court. Do you believe it is right that a grown up woman is spitting on my head, (I was 7 years old at the time) for dobbing in a criminal paedophile, even though I did not even know that he was dobbed in by older pupils?

    If you think this is all right then we don't need to discuss it any further, if you disagree with the action of these criminals then I am very happy to search for content in my blog that could be described as bigotry. I feel confident that the total content of my blog would be verified by a court of law as valid and justified.
     

  86. #85  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Is denying a large portion of the population the Vote not making them submit to your will?
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    To Neverfly,

    I think it would be impossible to take away religion. I just agree with the people who want to do away with organized religion. Like get rid of all the hypocrite, criminal, and insane religious leaders. Like the ones who turn holy words into evil acts like Sept 11. Or the ones who get their followers to buy them jet airplanes. This is beyond simple rights, these people are killing people, and manipulating people.

    I believe in freedom and rights. But would you want your kids, buying a con-artist priest a jet airplane, and your kids believing God is speaking to that priest?


    The question is, should a Christian who desires a war, that will kill everyone on Earth, have the right to vote, in a democracy?
    (These people desire a war, that will kill everyone on Earth.)


    Many of Americas founding fathers hated churches, and thought people that believed in God were nuts. Our founding fathers did not take any crap. Like the way they knocked corporations back on their butts. And one thing that made America so great, was our ability to change. Our ability to evolve for the bettering of America. Like founding national parks, creating welfare, and creating Social Security.

    But this past American spirit has gone away. Today American corporations have been granted the rights of human beings, in Americas courts. And today you are standing here defending cult rights. You are standing here defending Christians, who want a war to take place, that will kill everyone on planet Earth.

    Look at how many Muslims want to kill us, and they are about to have biological and nuclear weapons. And your saying its ok for American leaders, who think its Gods will for these Muslims to kill everyone on Earth, to be in control of America. This is just too stupid.

    I guess in your style of democracy, people who desire a war to kill everyone on Earth have rights. And they have the right to put leaders in office, who also want a war to kill everyone on planet Earth.

    You say there will always be evil men, and yes there will. But the problem is, you say a democracy grants these evil men, the "right" to be leaders.


    This debate is pointless, because we have both made up our minds.

    You say a democracy, should grant rights to cults, people who desire a war to kill everyone on Earth, and evil men. You say these people have the right to vote, and be leaders. And that a democracy should also grant rights to cult leaders, to have cult followers.

    I feel this way, and remember Americas founding fathers thought like me. I say to hell with the rights of people, who desire a war to kill everyone on Earth. And to hell with cult rights. And to hell with evil men's rights.

    Our founding fathers took away rights.
    They said to hell with corporations, and they took away corporations "rights", to be in, or around our government.
    And they said to hell with certain rich men controlling everyone, they took away those rich mens "rights", and then they took away their money.

    To bad that American spirit, of saying to hell with you, and taking away peoples rights is gone.


    p.s. I edited out Baptist in my above thread. My mother belongs to a great church, I think its Methodist, but I'm not sure.
    Last edited by chad; November 20th, 2012 at 02:11 AM.
     

  88. #87  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Chad, I've about had it.

    Your entire debate tactic at this point is bordering on dishonesty. I doubt that is your intention, but it is the result, nonetheless.
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Like get rid of all the hypocrite, criminal, and insane religious leaders. Like the ones who turn holy words into evil acts like Sept 11. Or the ones who get their followers to buy them jet airplanes. This is beyond simple rights, these people are killing people, and manipulating people.
    The Small Minority. You keep failing to address this: The Small Minority. Address it. Failing to address that key point compromises the honesty of your debate.
    In case you haven't noticed, there is no altruism.
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    But would you want your kids, buying a con-artist priest a jet airplane, and your kids believing God is speaking to that priest?
    Well, that's up to my son. But claiming they are buying him a jet plane is not quite accurate. Perhaps some get a personal jet. Most get mansions. It's all divided up to small amounts among the believers. Just like our taxes. Do I agree with it? No. But I'll defend their right to do it. People have the right to be idiots just as much as they have the right to be smart. You don't get to dictate intellect or beliefs to others.
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    The question is, should a Christian who desires a war on Earth, that will kill all life on Earth, have the right to vote, in a democracy?
    (These people desire a war, that will kill everyone on Earth.)
    Yes. You're still acting like there's mobs on the rampage, here. When are you going to face the problem that there aren't? That you've invented your position? That we're still here after thousands, nay, tens of thousands of years of theological interference?
    You've even admitted that humans in general do what they want and pick and choose what they want.
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    You are standing here defending Christians, who want a war to take place, that will kill all life on planet Earth.
    Yes, I am defending that small minority. I also defend Freedom across the board. They comprise possibly as high as 22% of the populace. That's a vast minority. And that's accounting for those that claimed they believe it may happen in their lifetime but would prefer it doesn't (People that would be voting in your favor). Many of that percentage believe that the end is due to 2012 propaganda, not even due to Biblical Armageddon. That's not enough people to end the world. That's a very small percentage of people to believe in and vote for a leader who will brig about the end of the world- assuming any leader advocated any manner of doing so!
    Your entire argument here is based on a sham. It is not an honest argument.

    Your anti-religion crusade sounds a lot like the Soothsayer, foolishly declaring that the end is near.

    Stop avoiding the facts. You're sounding a lot like those Republicans that try to alter the voter output by scamming people away from the voting booths by claiming rules that don't exist- such as that they must show two forms of ID to vote (When no such requirement exists.)
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Look at how many Muslims want to kill us, and they are about to have biological and nuclear weapons.
    You sound just like G.W. Bush, here.
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    And your saying its ok for American leaders, who think its Gods will for these Muslims to kill everyone on Earth, to be in control of America. This is just too stupid.
    Yes, that is stupid, but fortunately, your statement is based far more on your hyperactive imagination and desire to control people you don't agree with than on any kind of reality as to what I've expressed.
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    And they have the right to put leaders in office, who also want a war to kill all life on planet Earth.
    Bordering on dishonesty, here.
    Name one U.S. president that has advocated global genocide.
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    This debate is pointless, because we have both made up our minds.
    Yes, you've invented your own version of reality and you refuse to examine its merit or the actual statistical facts. You've condemned and cast judgment on the multitudes, all strangers to you, with no regard to whether your almost religious belief in their "obvious desire to kill all life" is valid or not.
    eta; Unless you are willing to re-examine the statistics and the facts, re-examine your bold assertions of throngs of people demanding for a leader to kill us all, then you are correct in one thing; the debate is pointless and time to let it drop.
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    I feel this way, and remember Americas founding fathers thought like me. I say to hell with the rights of people
    Got news for you, son. They did not think like you do, at all. This delusion of grandeur that centuries dead historical figures are supportive of your absurdities is contradicted by the very writings they left behind to protect the People of this nation from people like you. You have Bill Maher (An alright guy) on the same pedastal that many devout followers put Alex Jones and Rush Limbaugh on. You're no different from any of them.
    Last edited by Neverfly; November 20th, 2012 at 02:38 AM.
     

  89. #88  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Wechner View Post
    No, people should not meekly submit, and should never be ruled by atheists. We do not conquer or submit we have developed a method of how to resolve a disagreement between two parties, it is the court of law.
    A court of law set up by atheists, implementing laws in which theists have no voice. Yes, that sounds fair. Yes, there would be civil war, and you would be the cause of it. Starting a war - just exactly what theists are accused of doing.

    The people that do judge who is right or wrong are highly qualified and we trust that they do the right thing, as far as humanly possible. We do not appoint unskilled and uneducated people to the position of a judge or a lawyer. You may argue that this is discrimination, everybody should have the right to become a judge, independent of qualifications. We don't believe that it is discrimination, we insist that people have the right skills for a given task. We also insist that the people that govern a country should have the right skills.
    So you will be a benevolent tyrant, then.
    You have not given me any indication so far as where you see the bigotry in my blog, but you do start to show your colours with your response. The thought of a civil war to resolve a dispute is isolated to extremists, we resolve disputes in a court of law.
    Your line of thinking is the same one used tyrants everywhere and throughout history. Pick out a group you don't like and blame them for all sorts of problems. Then figure out why they are a little bit less human than you. They are too stupid, too crazy, or just plain evil. This will justify taking away their rights.
    I am happy to listen to any argument against my blog, but I did not here any from you as yet. Let's start from the beginning, do you believe that is right that a sadistic pedophile should be in charge of school classes for six year old pupils?
    Straw man argument.
    Do you believe it is right when hundreds of village people conduct a daily prayer processions to get a convicted criminal out of jail and try to put the blame of paedophilia onto the children. We trust that the court took the right decision and these people act in contempt of the court. Do you believe it is right that a grown up woman is spitting on my head, (I was 7 years old at the time) for dobbing in a criminal paedophile, even though I did not even know that he was dobbed in by older pupils?

    If you think this is all right then we don't need to discuss it any further, if you disagree with the action of these criminals then I am very happy to search for content in my blog that could be described as bigotry.
    I feel confident that the total content of my blog would be verified by a court of law as valid and justified.
    Do you believe it was all right when Pol Pot slaughtered millions? He was an atheist, you know. All religions were banned under the Khmer Rouge.

    All despotic regimes were validated by a court of law. What does that prove?
    Strange likes this.
     

  90. #89  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Neverfly I already have had it. And I feel the exact same way about your remarks.

    You say its a small amount of bad priests/people, but you are fighting for (their) rights.


    And many of these jet set priests, dont even believe in God, they are con-artists. I saw one of them with a room full of women answering phones for him, collecting money for the con-artist. Now you will say a con-artist priest has the right, to have a cult of women, and make his female followers believe he talks to God.

    I say to hell with a mans right, to have a cult of women, were he manipulates them, to make them believe he talks to God.


    You said you don't care if your son is in a cult, were his cult leader is manipulating him.

    You said it all.
     

  91. #90  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post

    And many of these jet set priests, dont even believe in God, they are con-artists.
    That would make them atheists, wouldn't it? Aha, I knew it, atheists are evil.
     

  92. #91  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Neverfly I already have had it. And I feel the exact same way about your remarks.
    Funny, my remarks didn't ignore the statistical reality which you continue to fail to address.
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    You said you don't care if your son is in a cult, were his cult leader is manipulating him.

    You said it all.
    Quote me where I said, "I do not care."
    You cannot quote that because I never said that. Yet, this manipulation of perception is exactly why your entire argument is a sham.

    Do me a favor: Do not try to tell me what I've said and most definitely do not presume to tell me what I do or do not care about.
     

  93. #92  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,585
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    You gave me the impression, that religion did not cause enough wars, for anyone to be concerned about.
    Based on the things you post, I assume that is because you have poor reading comprehension and critical thinking skills.

    Then God told America to protect Israel, because thats were Jesus is from.
    Blimey. Where do you get that from? What planet are you on?

    Why dont you go look at some pictures of war. Go look at some pictures of innocent men, women, and children laying dead in the streets. Instead of being some arm chair general in your living room, smiling about taking peoples land.
    Do pictures of war look worse if it was caused by religion? Is a non-religious war full of sweetness and light?

    And what the hell makes you think I am smiling about it. I am worried by the complexity of the causes rather than just repeating stupid propaganda you have picked up from conspiracy websites or newspapers just interested in sensation to sell more.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Wechner View Post
    No, people should not meekly submit, and should never be ruled by atheists. We do not conquer or submit we have developed a method of how to resolve a disagreement between two parties, it is the court of law.
    A court of law set up by atheists, implementing laws in which theists have no voice. Yes, that sounds fair. Yes, there would be civil war, and you would be the cause of it. Starting a war - just exactly what theists are accused of doing.

    The people that do judge who is right or wrong are highly qualified and we trust that they do the right thing, as far as humanly possible. We do not appoint unskilled and uneducated people to the position of a judge or a lawyer. You may argue that this is discrimination, everybody should have the right to become a judge, independent of qualifications. We don't believe that it is discrimination, we insist that people have the right skills for a given task. We also insist that the people that govern a country should have the right skills.
    So you will be a benevolent tyrant, then.
    You have not given me any indication so far as where you see the bigotry in my blog, but you do start to show your colours with your response. The thought of a civil war to resolve a dispute is isolated to extremists, we resolve disputes in a court of law.
    Your line of thinking is the same one used tyrants everywhere and throughout history. Pick out a group you don't like and blame them for all sorts of problems. Then figure out why they are a little bit less human than you. They are too stupid, too crazy, or just plain evil. This will justify taking away their rights.
    I am happy to listen to any argument against my blog, but I did not here any from you as yet. Let's start from the beginning, do you believe that is right that a sadistic pedophile should be in charge of school classes for six year old pupils?
    Straw man argument.
    Do you believe it is right when hundreds of village people conduct a daily prayer processions to get a convicted criminal out of jail and try to put the blame of paedophilia onto the children. We trust that the court took the right decision and these people act in contempt of the court. Do you believe it is right that a grown up woman is spitting on my head, (I was 7 years old at the time) for dobbing in a criminal paedophile, even though I did not even know that he was dobbed in by older pupils?

    If you think this is all right then we don't need to discuss it any further, if you disagree with the action of these criminals then I am very happy to search for content in my blog that could be described as bigotry.
    I feel confident that the total content of my blog would be verified by a court of law as valid and justified.
    Do you believe it was all right when Pol Pot slaughtered millions? He was an atheist, you know. All religions were banned under the Khmer Rouge.

    All despotic regimes were validated by a court of law. What does that prove?
    I am not impressed with your response, I am totally against violence, I do not approve of Pol Pot, I am not an atheist and have no intent to ban religions, I do not know why you make these things up. I believe you are so absorbed in your belief, probably Christian, that you lost all capabilities of reasoning and you do have no respect for the law and you obviously approve of clergy paedophilia.
     

  95. #94  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Wechner View Post
    and you obviously approve of clergy paedophilia.
    And so ends the debate when some parties are more interested in projecting their own behavior; jumping to outlandish conclusions rather than questioning the merit of arguments and of honest stats.
     

  96. #95  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,585
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    What percentage of Christians, believe that it's Gods plan, for a huge war to happen in the future, and this war will kill most life on Earth?
    Shouldn't you be answering this question as it forms the basis of your argument.

    In my experience: zero. I have never met anyone who thought this, and I have never even heard anyone say they thought this. Maybe you live in a strange isolated community full of religious extremists, but I can't see that it is a significant number overall.

    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    The following link shows the people I am talking about.

    It shows a high level republican leader in Washington, who believe these things.

    It shows a famous American preacher speaking these things, huge numbers of Americans have heard just that single priest, say those things.
    So that is two. That is about 0.000001% of the US population. Oooooh, so scary!

    Was WWI religious?
    Was WWII religious?
    Were the Vietnam or the Korean wars religious?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
     

  97. #96  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Wechner View Post
    and you obviously approve of clergy paedophilia.
    And so ends the debate when some parties are more interested in projecting their own behavior; jumping to outlandish conclusions rather than questioning the merit of arguments and of honest stats.
    It is good to see that there are some ordinary, common sense people in thescienceforum who's minds are not totally twisted (as yet).
     

  98. #97  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,585
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Wechner View Post
    It is good to see that there are some ordinary, common sense people in thescienceforum who's minds are not totally twisted (as yet).
    Based on your posts here, especially the previous one, you could improve things even further by leaving. And taking chad with you.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
     

  99. #98  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Wechner View Post
    It is good to see that there are some ordinary, common sense people in thescienceforum who's minds are not totally twisted (as yet).
    Based on your posts here, especially the previous one, you could improve things even further by leaving. And taking chad with you.
    I realize that I am not in good company.
     

  100. #99  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,585
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Wechner View Post
    I realize that I am not in good company.
    OK. Bye.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
     

  101. #100  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Wechner View Post
    I realize that I am not in good company.
    OK. Bye.
    Bugger, I thought you come with me.
     

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Should felons have the right to vote?
    By imati ozomatli in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: December 15th, 2012, 11:01 PM
  2. why vote?
    By Crippled in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: September 30th, 2011, 05:07 AM
  3. Potential vote fraud in Ohio.
    By Caligirl in forum Politics
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: August 26th, 2008, 05:54 PM
  4. British Only---Vote Liberal Democrats
    By Quantime in forum Politics
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: May 19th, 2008, 05:31 PM
  5. Help VOTE for Lightning!!! =)
    By Bruce44 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: August 3rd, 2007, 02:49 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •