Faith and madness, am I too harsh?

[AlbqOwl]

Right wingers objected to teaching a language in schools because it was a language that many Muslims speak. You can’t imagine, eh? :lamo

What right wingers were those? I don't know anybody, left, right, middle or nonidentifiable who has ever objected to teaching any language in a school. So if that happened., it must have been an extremely isolated incident and can be dismissed as an extremely isolated incident and irrelevant when it comes to agreeing on policy for the general community.

One or two should not be able to dictate policy for the whole community any more than the majority should be able to trample on the rights of the few.

 

[RAMOSS]

No I don't believe that you are serious... that's why I don't take you seriously... You have historically had little more to offer to any intelligent discussion beyond "prove it" "show me" and "Krishna..." posts.

And, historically, you make claims you can not show to be true. That sounds like an even match to me.

 

[Angel]

Troll on.

The irony of this post is immeasurable...

You believe that he is serious?

No I don't believe that you are serious... that's why I don't take you seriously... You have historically had little more to offer to any intelligent discussion beyond "prove it" "show me" and "Krishna..." posts.

And, historically, you make claims you can not show to be true. That sounds like an even match to me.

Slow night, RAMOSS?

 

[Deuce]

What right wingers were those? I don't know anybody, left, right, middle or nonidentifiable who has ever objected to teaching any language in a school. So if that happened., it must have been an extremely isolated incident and can be dismissed as an extremely isolated incident and irrelevant when it comes to agreeing on policy for the general community.

One or two should not be able to dictate policy for the whole community any more than the majority should be able to trample on the rights of the few.

I don’t know any liberals who objected to the things you’re bitching about.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I don’t know any liberals who objected to the things you’re bitching about.

I wasn't bitching about anything. You were bitching about right wingers objecting to a language being taught in school and that is what I was responding to. Try to keep up with your own argument, okay?

 

[Tim the plumber]

Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post
Does that extend to keeping your religion out of other people's lives?

So no religion in school?

No religion in court? No cross over the court house?

I have no right to demand that you observe my religious faith. You should have no right to deny me the right to observe it.

The State should have no say over religion and certainly should not be promoting any religion, but neither should it forbid the kids getting together for a Bible Study over the lunch hour, the student led prayer at assemblies,

That's fine. Nobody has any trouble with that unless it is pressed upon them by the teachers.

the generic prayer at sporting events,

Problem.

a moment of silence to begin the school day.

Not a problem.

It should not concern itself with a piece of art engraved with the Ten Commandments in any public place

I disagree. The court house is not a place of religious superiority.

or a historic old creche the community enjoys placing on the courthouse lawn over the Christmas season. It should not be improper for the school children to perform the great music of Handel, Mozart, Verdi, Mendelssohn, et al all financed by the Church in centuries past and that are now part of human history. Christmas as a national holiday should be celebrated as Christmas with all the joy and fun that entails.

Yep, not a problem.

All that was possible in the schools, both public school and college, where I grew up. God or religious faith was never made unwelcome or discouraged in any way. But I could not tell you the religious leanings or beliefs of a single one of my teachers or professors or even what religion they were except for one or two that attended my church. And one typing teacher who explained she could not attend our Saturday event because she had responsibilities at her Church and then explained that Seventh Day Adventists observed the Sabbath on Saturday. Even that was expressed very matter of fact and not at all as what we all should do. I just remember it because I found it so interesting. I am quite sure some of the kids were agnostic or Atheist but if so, there were no complaints and certainly it was no problem for them. And they enjoyed those concerts interspersed with great classical music with religious themes as much as anybody else and had just as much fun at the home room Christmas party. And violence, certainly deadly violence, just didn't happen in that environment.

Religious freedom exists only if religion is allowed to exist in peace. Though the First Amendment applied only to Congress, the spirit of it is: . . .(there will be) no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;. . .

That includes the freedom from religion. You would be a lot less happy if an Islamic school was having it's religious stuff all over your public places.

The anti-religious and religious alike mostly agree on the no establishment of religion part in the public venue everywhere. But where a kind of fascist anti-religious mindset comes in is when they would prohibit the free exercise of religion anywhere that they might see it exercised.

You can excercise it where ever you wish to but you do not have any right to put it into the places where you don't have, or should not have, power. The state should be entirely separate from it.

 

[AlbqOwl]

That's fine. Nobody has any trouble with that unless it is pressed upon them by the teachers.



Problem.



Not a problem.



I disagree. The court house is not a place of religious superiority.



Yep, not a problem.



That includes the freedom from religion. You would be a lot less happy if an Islamic school was having it's religious stuff all over your public places.



You can excercise it where ever you wish to but you do not have any right to put it into the places where you don't have, or should not have, power. The state should be entirely separate from it.

I'm sorry but I don't respond to chopped up posts that too often destroy context and change the point. We can agree to disagree because I see freedom of religion in a much different light than you do.

 

[Deuce]

I'm sorry but I don't respond to chopped up posts that too often destroy context and change the point. We can agree to disagree because I see freedom of religion in a much different light than you do.

Correct. You see it to mean that the government can favor one religion over another.

 

[Jetboogieman]

I'm sorry but I don't respond to chopped up posts that too often destroy context and change the point.

Once again, your usual out because you're intellectually incapable of actually addressing anything said.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Once again, your usual out because you're intellectually incapable of actually addressing anything said.

Thanks, I took care to make it clear what I was responding to.

I guss that is the real trouble. No room to evaid.

 

[gfm7175]

And, historically, you make claims you can not show to be true. That sounds like an even match to me.

I show them to be true, but you simply don't like my philosophical approach to it... you want me to physically prove metaphysical things...

 

[RAMOSS]

I show them to be true, but you simply don't like my philosophical approach to it... you want me to physically prove metaphysical things...

No. .. you gave an argument. And argument is not many things.. one thing it is not is evidence. An argument can be supported by evidence.. the good arguments are. However you have not shown anything to be true. As for 'physically prove metaphysical things'....if you can't show it, it's not evidence, but merely opinion and word games.

 

[Angel]

No. .. you gave an argument. And argument is not many things.. one thing it is not is evidence. An argument can be supported by evidence.. the good arguments are. However you have not shown anything to be true. As for 'physically prove metaphysical things'....if you can't show it, it's not evidence, but merely opinion and word games.

You and your fellow radical physicalists don't seem to know much about argument. Arguments reason to conclusions. Indeed, without the pertinent scientific argument, evidence isn't even evidence.

Here's one of the most famous arguments: I think; therefore, I am.
What sort of "evidence" is needed to make this argument convincing?

 

[Tim the plumber]

You and your fellow radical physicalists don't seem to know much about argument. Arguments reason to conclusions. Indeed, without the pertinent scientific argument, evidence isn't even evidence.

Here's one of the most famous arguments: I think; therefore, I am.
What sort of "evidence" is needed to make this argument convincing?

Obviously evidence is evidence. That is how language works. No philosophy needed. Just honesty.

Saying otherwise is lying.

The evidence that supports "I think therefore I am" is the thinking bit of the sentence. The "I am" is the claim.

Easy for those who don't habitually lie.

 

[Angel]

I show them to be true, but you simply don't like my philosophical approach to it... you want me to physically prove metaphysical things...

Materialism is contentedly close-minded. Think of the expression in the eyes of ruminating cattle.

 

[Angel]

QED
​

No. .. you gave an argument. And argument is not many things.. one thing it is not is evidence. An argument can be supported by evidence.. the good arguments are. However you have not shown anything to be true. As for 'physically prove metaphysical things'....if you can't show it, it's not evidence, but merely opinion and word games.

You and your fellow radical physicalists don't seem to know much about argument. Arguments reason to conclusions. Indeed, without the pertinent scientific argument, evidence isn't even evidence.

Here's one of the most famous arguments: I think; therefore, I am.
What sort of "evidence" is needed to make this argument convincing?

Obviously evidence is evidence. That is how language works. No philosophy needed. Just honesty.

Saying otherwise is lying.

The evidence that supports "I think therefore I am" is the thinking bit of the sentence. The "I am" is the claim.

Easy for those who don't habitually lie.

Ge'orrrre!

Tha's reyt silly, lad!

Nah then, Love, don't be a Mardy Bum!

Stop mitherin' yer betters with yer blitherin' on lyin' an' drivel!

Listen.

​

 

[X Factor]

You're not too harsh, you're Tim.
Your OP is thought-provoking and reasonably presented.
This is just to say I'm on board.

Namaste.

Yeah, that was the nicest way I've ever been told I'm mentally ill for believing in God.

 

[Logicman]

I watched some of a program examining the inmates of a US mental instution last night.

They were predominately schizopathic. The characteristics of this generally include an obsession with religion.

I don't know the degree to which the religion is the cause of the effect or if they simply reinforce each other.

The point i am coming to in this thread is that the denial of reality/evaision/lying I find coming from the religious is not perhaps as concious or deliberate as I presume.

The mindset that has little skepticism in dealing with the god question has the same lack of barrier to any random thought coming into their head. The man who had been speeding due to the primemister of Israel telling him to do so in his mind via telepathy has little processing ability to stop any idea from gaining a sense of being real in his head.

Similarly the guy who had problems with voices and seeing things that were not there would be hard pressed to hold out against the bombardment of ideas that the modern world throws at us all.

Perhaps the best way to reduce madness is to teach good methodology of thinking and link that with simple demanding physical tasks. I reccomend dry stone walling as the most sanity building task there is but whatever works.

Is the lack of ability for atheists like myself to communicate with the religious here because we are not addressing the basic methods of thinking or that we are in fact doing this and the religious are so deeply, either naturally or by indoctrination, in a different mental structure?

You saying the estimated 70% of Americans who are Christians are mentally unstable?

In my psych studies we came across the "Three Christs of Ypsilanti" case. It wasn't that they believed in religion - they all three believed they were Jesus Christ.

 

[Tim the plumber]

You saying the estimated 70% of Americans who are Christians are mentally unstable?

In my psych studies we came across the "Three Christs of Ypsilanti" case. It wasn't that they believed in religion - they all three believed they were Jesus Christ.

Very few of us are 100% mentally stable.

I see the effect of religious thinking as very similar to schitzo thinking. That those who get placed in mental instutions are just the extreme end of that.

 

[Logicman]

Very few of us are 100% mentally stable.

I see the effect of religious thinking as very similar to schitzo thinking. That those who get placed in mental instutions are just the extreme end of that.

I think Paul/God has it right in Romans chapter 1:

"Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

 

[devildavid]

I think Paul/God has it right in Romans chapter 1:

"Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

Sounds like the rantings of an extemely judgemental crazy man.

 

[Daisy]

You saying the estimated 70% of Americans who are Christians are mentally unstable?

In my psych studies we came across the "Three Christs of Ypsilanti" case. It wasn't that they believed in religion - they all three believed they were Jesus Christ.

Don't cha know...TTP gave up plumbing...he's a psychiatrist now...took an online course in it and everything...