|
|
Post by Darwinist on Mar 16, 2004 23:00:22 GMT -5
The Ten Commandments are the basis of the three largest monotheistic religions of the world and the beginning framework of our system of law.
Tell the Court, please - where do the 10Cs appear in our founding national documents, please?
...Oh! Nowhere? Nowhere?? Really?? Then what is their specific legal and constitutional relevance to this discussion, please?
Oh. They're the basis for our laws. I see.
Tell the court, please - did other ancient societies lack laws against theft, murder, adultery?
No, they didn't.
Well then, where in our laws do we prohibit "covetousness?"
We don't.
But the 10Cs specifically prohibit coveting, don't they?
Yes, they do.
Well then, tell the Court - if the 10Cs are the basis for America's laws, and the prohibition of covetousness is one of the 10Cs, why isn't 'coveting' represented in American law?
You don't know. I see.
Well then, what about any of the first 4 Commandments - the ones regarding proper conduct toward God. Where in American law are they represented?
They're not. I see.
Honoring one's father and mother - surely THEY must be represented in American jurisprudence!
They're not? You don't say!
Well, Ms. MO, if at least seven of the Bible's 10 Commandments has no representation among the laws of a country you maintain the legal system of which was founded on the 10Cs, how do you explain the discrepancy? How do you explain that of the TEN Commandments, only THREE of them have made it into our laws in some form? And how do you explain that each of those THREE existed as rules and laws common within societies and civilizations known to antedate the rise of a certain culture of sheep and goat herders which later gave rise to a derivative religion practiced by Hellenized Jews, called 'Christianity?'
...I see. You have no explanation. ...I rest my case, Your Honor.
Tell me how they would promote one religion over another and why they would prohibit your rights?
When my tax dollars are used by the government to promote or even honor a religion I do not subscribe to, then I feel marginalized. And so does every other nonbeliever in that religion, whatever it may be.
When the government shows preference to a religion, I, the practioner of another religion, will wonder if I can get a fair shake from my Congressman or my county judge when they practice the favored religion but I do not.
Yet if government officially recognizes NO religion, how can I complain, regardless of what religion I practice?
|
|
|
|
Post by Favre on Mar 16, 2004 23:01:03 GMT -5
He is definitely a troll. Perhaps we should just drink Nyquil and forget him.  |
|
|
|
Post by Darwinist on Mar 16, 2004 23:01:35 GMT -5
I don't see the point in arguing complete opposite worldviews. That's why I post on conservative boards.
You mean, that's why you HIDE on conservative boards.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darwinist on Mar 16, 2004 23:03:59 GMT -5
He is definitely a troll. Perhaps we should just drink Nyquil and forget him.
Try cyanide. Afterward, you'll feel better about the fact you were unable to answer me. Try compiling your post again. Try to be intelligent about it this time, though. I'll wait. Really.
|
|
|
|
Post by Favre on Mar 16, 2004 23:14:00 GMT -5
I'll try this one more time and try to be shorter.
You mean, that's why you HIDE on conservative boards.
Screw off
Try cyanide. Afterward, you'll feel better about the fact you were unable to answer me. Try compiling your post again. Try to be intelligent about it this time, though. I'll wait. Really.
Get bent. I hope this was short enough to hang in there.
You are not worth my time buttmunch.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darwinist on Mar 16, 2004 23:23:56 GMT -5
You are not worth my time...
It's surprising how often I hear that exact sentiment from people who make moronic claims: they always express it right after I challenge them (using historical references, legal precedents - whatever it takes to mount a proper refutation of a moronic claim), and right before they tuck their complacent, myopic and microscopic world-views into a crevice, along with their tails, between their churning little legs, as they light out for pastures where they hope only their fellow morons graze.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Mar 16, 2004 23:24:16 GMT -5
It has nothing to do with hiding. It has to do with really having respect and tolerance for others instead of typical lip service about tolerance from the left. You are not going to shake me from my firmly held world views as I'm sure I won't shake you from yours. There are many things I don't believe in but I don't set out to find believers in order to ridicule and basically make an ass of myself. I'm not a believer of Catholicism, but I don't go on Catholic chat boards to try and point out my perception of the error of their ways. The best debates are with people you have some differences with, but some basic, common understanding as a starting point. That is often what defines the difference between a debate and a mud slinging, inflammatory fight.
I truly believe that secular humanism IS a religion and you are the ones doing the majority of the proselytizing. You guys are more obnoxious than a pack of Jehovah's witnesses.
|
|
|
|
Post by Favre on Mar 16, 2004 23:26:02 GMT -5
You are not worth my time...It's surprising how often I hear that exact sentiment from people who make moronic claims: they always express it right after I challenge them (using historical references, legal precedents - whatever it takes to mount a proper refutation of a moronic claim), and right before they tuck their complacent, myopic and microscopic world-views into a crevice, along with their tails, between their churning little legs, as they light out for pastures where they hope only their fellow morons graze. Yes, you are a genius. Now go play in the the hi-way. Edited to dumb it down for the brilliant one. |
|
|
|
Post by Darwinist on Mar 16, 2004 23:58:49 GMT -5
It has nothing to do with hiding. It has to do with really having respect and tolerance for others instead of typical lip service about tolerance from the left.
When you make a claim, be prepared to defend it - and defend it cogently! - or leave the claim-making to the more intellectually capable. Some free, and damned good, advice, from me to you.
You are not going to shake me from my firmly held world views as I'm sure I won't shake you from yours.
Oh, but I'll bet you're wrong there. I am capable of modifying my positions, given sufficient, intelligent reason to do so. How do I know this? Because it's happened - more than once. But the operative concept is that it requires intelligent reasons to sway me: i.e. well thought-out arguments, provided or readily provided references, legal precedent, solid historical example, logic, logic and more logic.
There are many things I don't believe in but I don't set out to find believers in order to ridicule and basically make an ass of myself.
Complacency should be challenged wherever it's found. There's nothing more dangerous to the human condition than stagnation; there's nothing more pestiferous in the individual than intellectual stagnation.
I'm not a believer of Catholicism, but I don't go on Catholic chat boards to try and point out my perception of the error of their ways.
Probably because you're smart enough to know that you know zip about Catholicism. If you're well-versed in its true inconsistencies, and slapping Catholics around trips your trigger, then why not? I don't chase after Catholics to bash them either, because I get no enjoyment out of slapping them around. When one wants to start lording the superiority of his religion, at that point I'll happily publicly dangle the bloody and shameful historical particulars of his faith in his face: that's usually enough to persuade them to contemplate the value of personal humility.
I don't play to "make nice": I play to win, in debate exactly the same way I play chess. If you come to the board (chess or discussion) unprepared, I'm going to humilate you, and thoroughly enjoy myself doing it as I search for the most stylish way to deliver the coup de grace. ...A person has to keep the gallery happy too.
But I DO give my adversaries every opportunity to state their case, chapter and verse, because there's nothing I enjoy more than good, spirited debate between myself and someone who's my intellectual peer or superior. No one who steps unprepared into the ring with me will ever beat me. If that sounds arrogant, that's because it is arrogant. But it's arrogance I can and do back up every time I touch a keyboard.
The best debates are with people you have some differences with, but some basic, common understanding as a starting point.
How do you feel about the 2nd Amendment? I support it, with a few minor caveats. How do you feel about capital punishment? I support it wholeheartedly; but I also support wholeheartedly giving the condemned all the appeals to which they're entitled. I'll just bet there's common ground between us on those two points alone.
That is often what defines the difference between a debate and a mud slinging, inflammatory fight.
Ever see a Catholic and a Protestant get into it? They believe in the same God, the same Savior - yet they can tear at each other like each believes the other is satan himself. ...I repudiate your assertion. People with the most minor differences can assail each other like demons, and will just because they can.
I truly believe that secular humanism IS a religion and you are the ones doing the majority of the proselytizing.
But you see, it doesn't matter what you, personally, BELIEVE. That don't feed the intellectual bulldog, if you know what I mean. You better have more than feeling to go on before you start tossing around BS like "secular humanism is a religion!" ...Oh? Why? "Because... because I WANT it to be!!"
That's crap.
You guys are more obnoxious than a pack of Jehovah's witnesses.
Only dolts who don't know the whys and wherefores of what they SAY they believe think so.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Mar 17, 2004 0:07:11 GMT -5
It is a religion because secular humanists believe themselves to be God. All the evidence is right in your posts. It's prima facie.  |
|
|
|
Post by Darwinist on Mar 17, 2004 1:18:55 GMT -5
It is a religion because secular humanists believe themselves to be God. All the evidence is right in your posts. It's prima facie.
I am not omnipotent; therefore I cannot be God. I am not omniscient; therefore I cannot be God. I am not omnibenevolent; therefore I cannot be God. I am neither omnipresent nor immanent; therefore I cannot be God. ...Shall I go on?
What else have you got? You didn't do so well with your first foray into thinking territory....
|
|
|
|
Post by Darwinist on Mar 17, 2004 1:32:37 GMT -5
Yes, you are a genius.
As a matter of fact, I am. My last recorded IQ, taken when I tested for Mensa, was 159, which puts me comfortably over the minimum standard IQ score requirement for official recognition as a "genius." Thanks for noticing. ...My wife's IQ is a few points higher, bless her soul.
Now go play in the the hi-way.
You mean by playing "Run Over the Drooling Moron," my favorite hi-way game? I'd love to! ...Where will you be standing?
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Mar 17, 2004 1:52:54 GMT -5
Main Entry: re·li·gion Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n Function: noun Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY 1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance 2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices 3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS 4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith - re·li·gion·less adjective Just because you worship a false God doesn't mean it's not a religion. |
|
|
|
Post by Favre on Mar 17, 2004 2:11:27 GMT -5
Why is this idiot still here?
|
|
|
|
Post by Darwinist on Mar 17, 2004 3:09:14 GMT -5
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
Clearly inapplicable to secular humanism (have you ever noticed the very name repudiates religion connections? - 'secular' is roughly the opposite of 'sectarian') because SH recognizes no deity, nor the existence of the supernatural.
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
Also inapplicable to SH because the attitudes, beliefs and practices of secular humanists are not religious in nature, nor is there an "institutionalized system" of attitudes, beliefs and practices. One may be a secular humanist without, eg., ever having read "The Humanist Manifesto" or "The Humanist Manifesto II."
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
As in "...he brushed his teeth religiously, each night before retiring."
This is obviously a far cry conceptually from the sort of "religion" mentioned in the first two definition sections: the established use #3 is almost a parodizing of the mechanical, dronelike aspect of many religious believers, as they perform their propitiations and prayers in almost mindless, robotic fashion.
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
Finally, here, you find a conceptual state I have seen apply to some of the secular humanists I know. Every "strong" (fideistic) atheist I know fits #4. Yet I am a methodological atheist - a "weak" atheist in the vernacular. So does that mean my secular humanism is not religious in nature, while someone else's might be? You see, MO, my skepticism about everything except those things supported by historiophysical evidence, means that I have no a priori committment to any single philosophy or institutionalized belief. I even subject to doubt my own atheism, which is why I'm a "weak" atheist - because valid evidence for the existence of God (or any other deity, or even for just the supernatural itself) would cause me to toss my atheism aside in an instant.
Additionally, under the broad generalization of #4, it would be possible to turn almost any human concept, endeavor or course of action, especially if taken to the extreme, into a "religion." A laissez faire capitalist, for example, could be said to hold with ardor a faith in the utter freedom of markets.
Does this mean laissez faire capitalism is a "religion," especially in the equivalent sense that Roman Catholicism, or the Southern Baptist denomination of Protestantism, or Islam, or Judaism are religions? ...I think you'd get quite a heated argument from any Roman Catholic, or Southern Baptist, or Muslim, or Jew, if you dared seriously suggest to them that an ardent devotion to the principles of laissez faire capitalism was a thing to be considered on par with their faith in God or Allah. ...Don't you think so too?
So, while #4 meets the usage of a definition of "religion" it's a very limited usage which I think safe to say that the concept of "religion" it defines is NOT identical, nor can even be made identical, to the concepts underlying the definitions found in either #1 or #2.
Just because you worship a false God doesn't mean it's not a religion.
But what about the nonworship of no-God?
Secular humanism has no ceremonial aspect; no testimonies are collected, no miracles performed, no "tongues" gibbered, no serpents handled, no Mass spoken, no prayers delivered, no hymns sung.
There is no single creed or doctrine-set by which "members" are required to live, no tenets for us to contemplate, no catechism for us to recite, no mantras to drone, no "Sayings of the Holy Fathers" to memorize.
There are no churches, no cathedrals, no synagogues, no mosques, no sweat-lodges, no temples, no altars, no baptismal fonts, no apses, chapels or rectories.
We have no priests, ministers, shamans, monks, Lamas, rabbis, laity, Elders, imams, Cardinals, Fathers, preachers, mullahs, pastors, witch doctors, priestesses, nuns, prophets, "sons of God," "sons of Man," popes, prelates, or friars.
So in what specific sense is secular humanism a "religion" to be equated with the deity-propitiating faiths of the planet?
You'll have to do somewhat better than a dictionary definition.
|
|
