(02-21-2012 03:43 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(02-21-2012 03:27 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-21-2012 03:22 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Any religious person who thinks they know how the world is going to end is dangerous.

Any scientist who thinks they know how the world is going to end is dangerous. Asteroids! Global Warming! Ice Age! Super Volcano!

Shall I continue...

Well, if it's based on empirical observation I don't think the scientist is dangerous at all, because we're going to find out sooner or later.

Religious people are dangerous because they reject the notion that nuclear war will wipe us out, or that the effects of global warming might because--

They shouldn't let people like you drive.

(02-21-2012 04:29 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  The fact some religious people seem to think you need religion to have a solid moral compass is always a bit frightening to me.

It's just hard to trust or rely on anyone who believes that. It implies they're only acting as a decent person because their religion told them to, not because they're just a decent human. If they were naturally a decent person w/o their religion, they wouldn't think other people need to have religion to have a strong moral compass either.

Where do you get the idea of what a decent person is?

(02-21-2012 04:29 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  The fact some religious people seem to think you need religion to have a solid moral compass is always a bit frightening to me.

It's just hard to trust or rely on anyone who believes that.

Yeah, logic is a scary thing!

What's frightening is people who have no intelligence, and try to impose that on everyone else.

(02-21-2012 04:20 PM)Max Power Wrote:  At least the guy who hates America isn't going to blow us all up from his home in Alaska because he thinks he's safe there.

So he's going to blow everyone up....? What color is the sky in your world?

(02-21-2012 03:43 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(02-21-2012 03:27 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-21-2012 03:22 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Any religious person who thinks they know how the world is going to end is dangerous.

Any scientist who thinks they know how the world is going to end is dangerous. Asteroids! Global Warming! Ice Age! Super Volcano!

Shall I continue...

Well, if it's based on empirical observation I don't think the scientist is dangerous at all, because we're going to find out sooner or later.

Religious people are dangerous because they reject the notion that nuclear war will wipe us out, or that the effects of global warming might because--shockingly--the people writing Revelations 2,000 years ago never mentioned any of that.

What religious people reject that a nuclear war would wipe us out. Just the opposite. I bet a lot of religious pray that it won't happen.

We all know that man made global warming is a fraud, but in reality some warming is very good to grow crops and sustain populations.

How can you speak for all religions and all religious people and what they believe, that is insane. The Bible, Revelations can be interpreted in many ways.

(02-21-2012 04:32 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-21-2012 04:20 PM)Max Power Wrote:  At least the guy who hates America isn't going to blow us all up from his home in Alaska because he thinks he's safe there.

So he's going to blow everyone up....? What color is the sky in your world?

Yeah, and I'm the one who reads too many comic books.

(02-21-2012 04:37 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-21-2012 04:32 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-21-2012 04:20 PM)Max Power Wrote:  At least the guy who hates America isn't going to blow us all up from his home in Alaska because he thinks he's safe there.

So he's going to blow everyone up....? What color is the sky in your world?

Yeah, and I'm the one who reads too many comic books.

I don't think I've ever encountered someone as delusional as Max. Or someone who tries so hard to prove invalid points with straw man arguments. Its sad really.

(02-21-2012 04:29 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  The fact some religious people seem to think you need religion to have a solid moral compass is always a bit frightening to me.

It's just hard to trust or rely on anyone who believes that. It implies they're only acting as a decent person because their religion told them to, not because they're just a decent human. If they were naturally a decent person w/o their religion, they wouldn't think other people need to have religion to have a strong moral compass either.

Exactly. It's like saying, "I'm working at this soup kitchen because my God's law commands me to, but if I ever find a loophole around it I'll cut you with this bread knife!" You shouldn't need an expectation of reward or to be scared with damnation to be a good person.

(02-21-2012 04:40 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(02-21-2012 04:29 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  The fact some religious people seem to think you need religion to have a solid moral compass is always a bit frightening to me.

It's just hard to trust or rely on anyone who believes that. It implies they're only acting as a decent person because their religion told them to, not because they're just a decent human. If they were naturally a decent person w/o their religion, they wouldn't think other people need to have religion to have a strong moral compass either.

Exactly. It's like saying, "I'm working at this soup kitchen because my God's law commands me to, but if I ever find a loophole around it I'll cut you with this bread knife!" You shouldn't need an expectation of reward or to be scared with damnation to be a good person.

Where do you get the idea or notion of what defines a good person?

(02-21-2012 04:29 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  The fact some religious people seem to think you need religion to have a solid moral compass is always a bit frightening to me.

It's just hard to trust or rely on anyone who believes that. It implies they're only acting as a decent person because their religion told them to, not because they're just a decent human. If they were naturally a decent person w/o their religion, they wouldn't think other people need to have religion to have a strong moral compass either.

Totally agree. There are some bad people out there that go to church every Sunday, then screw over everybody the other 6 days of the week.

Likewise different religious denominations think others are all screwed up.
I am sure the Southern Baptists would flip out at a Summer Catholic Church festival with the Kegs of beer and gambling tents.

(02-21-2012 04:32 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-21-2012 04:29 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  The fact some religious people seem to think you need religion to have a solid moral compass is always a bit frightening to me.

It's just hard to trust or rely on anyone who believes that.

Yeah, logic is a scary thing!

What's frightening is people who have no intelligence, and try to impose that on everyone else.

So you too are turned off by creationists trying to infiltrate our public schools.

First you apologize last week, and now you clearly agree with me, that listening to the brightest minds of today, scientists, mathematicians, etc.. is preferred over letting scientifically unsupported religious thoughts determine public policy. Welcome to The Left DrTorch. Logic > 2000 year old contradictory fairy tales

(02-21-2012 04:34 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(02-21-2012 03:43 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(02-21-2012 03:27 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-21-2012 03:22 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Any religious person who thinks they know how the world is going to end is dangerous.

Any scientist who thinks they know how the world is going to end is dangerous. Asteroids! Global Warming! Ice Age! Super Volcano!

Shall I continue...

Well, if it's based on empirical observation I don't think the scientist is dangerous at all, because we're going to find out sooner or later.

Religious people are dangerous because they reject the notion that nuclear war will wipe us out, or that the effects of global warming might because--shockingly--the people writing Revelations 2,000 years ago never mentioned any of that.

What religious people reject that a nuclear war would wipe us out. Just the opposite. I bet a lot of religious pray that it won't happen.

We all know that man made global warming is a fraud, but in reality some warming is very good to grow crops and sustain populations.

How can you speak for all religions and all religious people and what they believe, that is insane. The Bible, Revelations can be interpreted in many ways.

How can he be sure Alaska is a refuge for the End Times if he believes a nuclear war could wipe us out? If you believe the former, you necessarily believe that a nuclear war won't wipe out humanity. There has to be refugees for a refuge.

And this is the preacher for the 2008 GOP VP nominee for chrissake. Scary.

I know that there are many different interpretations, many of which are mostly harmless. This is just an example of one frightening interpretation. But anyone who truly believes they literally know how the world is going to end, and that the world doesn't end with nuclear war, will necessarily believe he or she can risk a nuclear war without wiping out humanity. That is scary. Pre-nuclear age, all these armageddon theories were less scary. But now the zealots have a means to test their theories.

(02-21-2012 04:40 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(02-21-2012 04:29 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  The fact some religious people seem to think you need religion to have a solid moral compass is always a bit frightening to me.

It's just hard to trust or rely on anyone who believes that. It implies they're only acting as a decent person because their religion told them to, not because they're just a decent human. If they were naturally a decent person w/o their religion, they wouldn't think other people need to have religion to have a strong moral compass either.

Exactly. It's like saying, "I'm working at this soup kitchen because my God's law commands me to, but if I ever find a loophole around it I'll cut you with this bread knife!" You shouldn't need an expectation of reward or to be scared with damnation to be a good person.

That isn't why people volunteer or help others out. I could just as easily say an Urban hipster non believer, non religious volunteer at the soup kitchen does that to pad his resume. I mean how many Urban YP yuppie volunteer group, fundraisers are out there? And you see that stuff on resumes.

If you help someone out with no strings attached it is what it is.

(02-21-2012 04:50 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(02-21-2012 04:34 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(02-21-2012 03:43 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(02-21-2012 03:27 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-21-2012 03:22 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Any religious person who thinks they know how the world is going to end is dangerous.

Any scientist who thinks they know how the world is going to end is dangerous. Asteroids! Global Warming! Ice Age! Super Volcano!

Shall I continue...

Well, if it's based on empirical observation I don't think the scientist is dangerous at all, because we're going to find out sooner or later.

Religious people are dangerous because they reject the notion that nuclear war will wipe us out, or that the effects of global warming might because--shockingly--the people writing Revelations 2,000 years ago never mentioned any of that.

What religious people reject that a nuclear war would wipe us out. Just the opposite. I bet a lot of religious pray that it won't happen.

We all know that man made global warming is a fraud, but in reality some warming is very good to grow crops and sustain populations.

How can you speak for all religions and all religious people and what they believe, that is insane. The Bible, Revelations can be interpreted in many ways.

How can he be sure Alaska is a refuge for the End Times if he believes a nuclear war could wipe us out? If you believe the former, you necessarily believe that a nuclear war won't wipe out humanity. There has to be refugees for a refuge.

And this is the preacher for the 2008 GOP VP nominee for chrissake. Scary.

I know that there are many different interpretations, many of which are mostly harmless. This is just an example of one frightening interpretation. But anyone who truly believes they literally know how the world is going to end, and that the world doesn't end with nuclear war, will necessarily believe he or she can risk a nuclear war without wiping out humanity. That is scary. Pre-nuclear age, all these armageddon theories were less scary. But now the zealots have a means to test their theories.

Nuclear war could or could not wipe out humanity. Some areas of the planet would be advantageous strongholds for surviving, that is for sure.
Man you are reaching to make any religious person look stupid, and that is easy to do when you have a billion different denominations in the USA, people preaching every Sunday, books and practices that are 2,000 years older and older (for our Jewish friends), easy to be a critic.

I am sure that I can go to a bunch of Atheists websites and poke fun at what they do and write.

(02-21-2012 03:39 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Yeah right, people need religion to have a moral compass. Without the 10 Commandments, how would we know not to kill, or steal? Or worship false idols? Good thing we have religion to tell us not killing and stealing is a good idea.

Did I miss something? Miss read you? Your moral compass has flipped? You agree women and doctors killing their babies is wrong? Your against the theft of a mans wages?

Where does Jesus say life begins at conception? When did he say taxes are theft?

See you guys don't really even have guidance for what constitutes murder or theft because it's so vague. And the provisions that are there give self important sanctimonious preachers/priests grounds to interpret moral laws however they want, dictate to their flock and attempt to enforce their own idea of morality on the rest of us.

Murder and theft are vague. Got it.

Apparently, because its followers can't agree on when life begins or whether taxation is theft.

(02-21-2012 03:13 PM)ummechengr Wrote:  Here's a question that was recently posed to me.....

Imagine your ideal Presidential Candidate....the person that would enact legislation you agree with, and fight to be rid of legislation you disagree with. They have the exact same idea as to the role of the Federal Government in your life.

Now, imagine there is a clone of this person...the only difference between them being, one is Atheist, and the other is Muslim.

Who would you vote for and why?

After seeing multiplicity several times I vote for whichever is the original copy. Clone would be lacking in some area. If the clone was the atheist, wouldn't that be expected since he is lacking a soul?

I'm sure Rick believes in the boogeyman, tooth fairy, bigfoot, and all the other made up little fairy tales too.