patrick.net

Peter P says

Yeah, and nerd are oh so attractive.

So, not being a delusional fool makes one a nerd by your standards? I would argue that says more about you than the people you are criticizing.

Dan8267 says

I would argue that says more about you than the people you are criticizing.

At least someone thinks I'm not a nerd. :-)

If Sam Harris is reiterating Craig's apologetics correctly, he is burning a straw god created by both himself and Dr. Craig.

We don't know what 'God' is or is not. We can make the assumption that humankind created a god-identity to explain whatever frightened, comforted, befuddled, or amazed us throughout our evolution - certainly a rational position based upon reason and a basic understanding of human nature. Children are the originators of 'magical thinking': 'my kitten will get well if I wish hard 8 times a day and sleep with her favorite toy and take her blanket with me wherever I go'. Most of us, athiests included, indulge in some form of ritualized wishing or bargaining when something is happening in our lives that is truly beyond our control.

It is easy to see how the idea of a powerful conscious force may have evolved with us as we progressed through eons of development as beings capable of altering our world through our will, yet still subject to caprices of circumstance. This may be the reality of our concept of 'God'. Or, there may be something, a prime mover, an ultimate caring consciousness that will always be beyond our abilities to rationally comprehend. Something that must be taken on 'faith' to be of any benefit as a guiding force in our lives.

To those, including Mr. Harris, who 'destroy' the possibility of a conscious, guiding presence by stating that 'no loving god would allow children to be harmed or die', I ask; if you were dying of cancer, or on a plane being piloted by hijackers, or trapped in a burning building, wouldn't your mother or father give their lives to save you if they could? If you committed a crime and were committed to years in prison, or chose an abusive spouse, or became a drug addict, wouldn't a loving parent do everything in their power to save you from these circumstances? But consider what would result if they could and did always save you from harm. Would you then have the ability and opportunity to experience free will and develop strength of character that wise parents want for their children?

The existence of a penultimate caring conscious force can not be disproved if intervention during times of crisis is the benchmark. The purpose of such a conscious, guiding influence only has meaning if the ultimate goal is to help humankind continue to evolve the highest ability for empathy that we are capable of within our individual lives and as a peculiarly and particularly evolved species. Through whatever circumstances of origination, we are the caretakers of our planet and each other.

I do not claim to have any evidence of the existence of a guiding 'Great Spirit'. I do feel that following the elemental wisdom and kindness of the most important principle to treat others as you wish to be treated, in all things and at all times, to take responsibility for increasing your own capacity to live in this way and encourage others, particularly children to understand the value of it, is the greatest challenge to us as a species and engenders the greatest potential value that the human race can bring to our own world and to whoever else may dwell in the Universe.

Whether we progress towards greater empathy through our own will or through a belief that we feel a guiding hand when we are incapable of mustering the strength alone, we will never reach this goal without tolerance of each others way of traveling towards it.

Now go pet your puppy, or kiss your child, or call a lonely friend and/or have a beer and be at peace.

Dan8267 says

marcus says

Being an atheist is beyond understandable.

Perhaps to you because you are willfully ignorant.

Maybe more than understandable would have been easier for you to interpret.

whiterabbit says

We don't know what 'God' is or is not.

Then the word "god" or "God" is meaningless and no holy book should have ever used it, and no politician should ever use it, and no one should have faith in it.

Vagueing up the concept of god to avoid criticisms of it is disingenuous. People don't worship a vague concept. People don't say "a vague unknowable concept is on our side". When the morality police comes for you, it's not because of the will of some vague unknowable concepts. "Vague unknowable concepts hate fags!" just doesn't have the same ring. When politicians like Senator James Inhofe say climate change is impossible, he doesn't mean because a vague unknowable concept doesn't allow it.

When people advocate policy or make decisions, they aren't appealing to the vague unknowable concept. So it's disingenuous to temporarily redefine god to that solely to avoid criticism and then go back to the very well-defined, specific, Jesus-based god.

In fact, if you are advocating that code is a vague, knowable concept, then you are stating that Moses did not get the Ten Commandments from god, that the Bible is not the word of god, and that Jesus did not rise from the dead and ascend into heaven. Basically, you are substituting the monotheist's god with something far less. You might as well call yourself an atheist who believes there may be things we don't know about the universe. Oh wait, that would make you just like every other atheist ever.

Dan8267 says

despite all this, atheists should be the ones who have no freedom of speech and no right to advocate their position on superstitions. Atheists, like blacks and homosexuals, should shut up and just bear the injustices in the world because..., well because..., um..., well..., because I said so!

Oh, you poor victim you.

I believe you're free to criticize as you do, not just the extremist fundamentalists and holier than though assholes, but all believers. You're free to do it. But my opinion is that (from my frame of reference) you're being kind of an arrogant prick when you do it.

To you, the Dali Lama, the Pope and all others who profess a higher power (not exactly the case with Buddhists such as the Dali Lama), and the benefits of faith are a negative influence on the world.

Dan8267 says

Then the word "god" or "God" is meaningless and no holy book should have ever used it, and no politician should ever use it, and no one should have faith in it.

This is where we see how much of a black and white thinker you are. You can't deal with not knowing one way or the other for sure. So you choose to know for sure that God does not exist.

Most great mystics or whatever you want to call them, the greatest "holy men' (for lack of a better term), are agnostic to somewhere a little on the believing side of agnostic.

humanity says

I believe you're free to criticize as you do, not just the extremist fundamentalists and holier than though assholes, but all believers. You're free to do it. But my opinion is that (from my frame of reference) you're being kind of an arrogant prick when you do it.

There are plenty of places where his ability to do so would be restricted, even in the US.

humanity says

To you, the Dali Lama, the Pope and all others who profess a higher power (not exactly the case with Buddhists such as the Dali Lama), and the benefits of faith are a negative influence on the world.

Why can't he claim that? I presume, for example, the lack of condom use in Africa hasn't been a positive influence.

By the way. I have never said that atheism is a religion.

It's justs Dan's proselytize version which is, maybe to a lessor degree Bill Maher's version.

I like BM by the way - aside from his being a little over the top on religion. I guess when someone is strongly indoctrinated as a child into Catholicism it's sometimes so hard to undue the effect, without a lot of overboard hostility toward religion later, especially for example in Dan's case. One can only imagine how strong his faith was when he was seven.

Bigsby says

Why can't he claim that? I presume, for example, the lack of condom use in Africa hasn't been a positive influence.

We all know countless ways religion has been a negative force, and countless positives as well. The problem is the generalization that it always is, or that in total it is negative. Ironic that unlike most great thinkers, Dan somehow has God like powers to somehow know the answer to these questions.

humanity says

We all know countless ways religion has been a negative force, and countless positives as well.

I'm certainly clear on the countless negative things that these leaders have often done in the name of their religion. I'm less clear on the countless positive things that they have done that are specific to their religious beliefs.

Consider the theory of Panpsychism. It's a popular philosophical debate these days.

Read the arguments for and against. DO you need to decide which is correct ? Or can you just appreciate the theory and the implications, and even the arguments against it? If you can handle being in the "i really don't know" state of mind on panpsychism, but find it intriguing or at least interesting, then I would think you would likely be an an agnostic on the question of God as well. That is at least relative to a half way sophisticated less pinned down version of what God is or might be if there is a God.

By the way, I am not implying some link between Panpsychism and God. But it deals with consciousness. If we can't even wrap our minds around what consciousness is or isn't, why would one try to disprove the existence of God, especially when they have absolutely no clue what many people mean by the word ?

Most believers in God don't have an exact idea of what God is. In fact some use words like ineffable - meaning that really there isn't even a word for it. We use the word God, only for lack of a better word.

It's the people that want to disprove the existence of God that are so hell bent on saying exactly what God is supposed to be. Because this enables them to look down on believers. Or in some cases, because it gives them peace of mind, because they are the type that just have to know one way or the other, and aren't comfortable with "I don't know" when it comes to this question.

humanity says

One can only imagine how strong his faith was when he was seven.

I wasn't brought up in a religious household. I share his views. The only issue I have with him is that at times he comes across as extremely arrogant.

Okay. Well we can agree on that. Even he knows it, and it might more his forum persona than his real life persona. One would have to hope he behaves a little different in real life.

humanity says

It's the people that want to disprove the existence of God that are so hell bent on saying exactly what God is supposed to be. Because this enables them to look down on believers

But here's the thing, I say ... why not? So if Dan or someone wants to tell me that any belief or ideology of a higher power/essence or what have you is false, then good for him, since it really doesn't affect my beliefs and at the same time, I'm also into science & engineering, so I'm not exactly about to let some theocratic state-like authority tell me what to do.

And by having ppl like Dan around, it also helps me because I don't have to later face heresy charges, from those who'll say that my beliefs don't align with doctrine, since Dan's around to tell the modern era Pharisees that they have no authority to begin with.

Thus, I like Dan and want him and other ardent atheists around.

What I have to say to proselytizers is to keep it in their pants. I'm not interested in the dimension of their spiritual c*ck.

humanity says

Read the arguments for and against. DO you need to decide which is correct ? Or can you just appreciate the theory and the implications, and even the arguments against it? If you can handle being in the i really don't know, but find it intriguing or at least interesting, then I would think you are an agnostic. That is at least relative to a modern less pinned down version of what God is or might be if there is a God.

Beyond the woo-woo, where is the actual scientific evidence for such views? I know of no research that demonstrates 'the world has a soul.' That, to me, should be the only concern. As it stands, it is simply people doing forms of intellectual gymnastics without any demonstrable basis, so why should I attach any real worth to it?

humanity says

By the way, I am not implying some link between Panpsychism and God. But it deals with consciousness. If we can't even wrap our minds around what consciousness is or isn't, why would one try to disprove the existence of God, especially when they have absolutely no clue what many people mean by the word ?

I don't understand the point you are trying to make. And what many people mean by God is manifest in their religious beliefs. And you don't have to paint an exact picture of God to have an understanding of the consequences of religious beliefs.

humanity says

Most believers in God don't have an exact idea of what God is. In fact some use words like inneffable - maning that really there isnn't even a word for it. We use the word God, only for lack of a better word.

So? How is that a rebuke to the points Dan was making?

humanity says

It's the people that want to disprove the existence of God that are so hell bent on saying exactly what God is supposed to be. Because this enables them to look down on believers.

They aren't saying exactly what God is supposed to be. Atheists don't believe in God. They respond to what believers say their God is.

Atheists aren't arrogant. Theists are.

They believe God, who looks like a Savannah Ape, created the entire universe for the benefit of Savannah Apes around a typical sun on an outer arm of a typical galaxy, one of millions.

As for Dr. Craig, he does the same crap Theists have always been doing - placing God beyond the Clouds, Firmament, Aether, Solar System, Galaxy, etc. to find a place for him. Always placing Yahweh at the very edge of human knowledge, and pushing him back further as knowledge grows.

Craig himself admits the Kalam Argument is just to shore up the faithful and spread doubt in disbelievers if possible. He himself believes in a Personal God by Faith.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not just "Proof by Logic".

thunderlips11 says

Always placing Yahweh at the very edge of human knowledge, and pushing him back further as knowledge grows

Exactly, didn't the Zoroastrians call the same exact entity, Ahura Mazda?

Seriously, if someone's going to tout a universal god as their own, at least have it be an original concept.

Dan8267 says

As long as religion is given respect and reverence instead of the criticism and derision it rightfully deserves, politicians like Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe who was just said that climate change could not be possible because "God's still up there". And about one third of Americans would applaud him for saying that and will continue to elect mentally insane people like him into powerful government positions.

This is why I fight to promote reasoning and science, which necessitates combating the lies of religion and "spirituality". This isn't an academic issue. The very future of mankind is in the balance.

And if Marcus calls this example unrepresentative -- he's a big fan of the No True Scotsman fallacy as well -- then he's being his usual disingenuous and lying self. Senator Inhofe literally represents 3.851 million Americans. And he's hardly alone in the Senate or the House. Almost 100% of the senators in the past 30 years have referred to their fictitious god on the floor of the Senate while debating policies.

Yes, I concur with the above and disagree with Marcus's attempts at both staging an ad hominem motion, as well as playing an apologist for those who can't separate their Sabbath day activities from their work for the greater public who don't attend the same services.

Rin says

Again, what I have to say to proselytizers is to keep it in their pants. I'm not interested in the dimension of their spiritual c*ck.

Bigsby says

They aren't saying exactly what God is supposed to be. Atheists don't believe in God. They respond to what believers say their God is.

You obviously haven't read Dan's extensive "proof" that God does not exist. You can't prove something doesn't exist without getting very much into what it is.

It's actually quite laughable. He takes a straw man definition of God, giving great detail to an object of beliefs he does not hold nor understand, in order to prove that it's impossible.

Rin says

as well as playing an apologist for those who can't separate their Sabbath day activities from their work for the greater public who don't attend the same services.

Wow. That must have been some seriously indirect apology.

Dan8267 says

You can bitch and moan all you want that mathematics is bullshit

Nice try. I wasn't trolling you. This is a perfect example of your childishness and your emotion and ego driven point of view on this subject.

marcus says

Rin says

as well as playing an apologist for those who can't separate their Sabbath day activities from their work for the greater public who don't attend the same services.

Wow. That must have been some seriously indirect apology.

If/when we go back to the 17/18th century theocratic society, which will occur if more and more evangelical types take office... when I'm facing charges of heresy for promoting this notion that the concept of God is personal (and experiential) but not doctrinal, I'd much rather have Dan as my defense attorney than you.

Rin says

I'd much rather have Dan as my defense attorney than you

I'm not so sure. Dan isn't so good at navigating nuance, plus his people skills are seriously lacking. He'd piss off the judge and the jury, by implying they are morons. Where as I would drill down to and focus only on the question at hand.

Most people with common sense realize that the better person to argue in favor of secularism, is the person who is sensitive to and possibly even sympathetic with the religious. United States history certainly backs this up.

I'm not saying that the radical doesn't have their place in affecting change or that I don't want any radicals in the conversation. But I believe history will show you that the radical often causes those on the other point of view to dig in and actually strengthens their numbers, by painting the dangerous radical views as dangerous and evil.

The real battles are fought and won closer to the middle.

marcus says

Dan isn't so good at navigating nuance

Yes, he may not be in let's say the lead Clarence Darrow role, as in the actor Spencer Tracy of yesteryear, but he'll be the lead member of the defense squad, providing all the angles and hypocrisies of the prosecution.

The Darrow character, whomever he may be, will argue that the concept of heresy is based upon religious canon as oppose to an individual's faith and thus, render a heresy trial as overstepping the powers of some particular denomination's growth curve, in American politics.

marcus says

The real battles are fought and won closer to the middle.

This isn't an issue of middle.

humanity says

Oh, you poor victim you.

Hey asshole, I didn't claim to be a "poor victim". I need no sympathy from inferiors. I've clearly stated my position and justified it in great detail. If the best response you can make is a lame ad hominem, then that's your failing, not mine. Grow a pair and debate the issue.

humanity says

But my opinion is that (from my frame of reference) you're being kind of an arrogant prick when you do it.

Your opinion does not reflect reality. I criticize religion and superstition because they need to be criticized. Only an emotionally immature person views an adult debate on an important subject matter as arrogance. Get over yourself. If you don't like my arguments then make a sensible counter-argument. Stop crying like a baby.

humanity says

To you, the Dali Lama, the Pope and all others who profess a higher power (not exactly the case with Buddhists such as the Dali Lama), and the benefits of faith are a negative influence on the world.

Yes, and I have provided ample justifications as to how and why they are. They promote irrationality and very bad decision making with dire, often life-threatening, consequences. For example, the AIDS epidemic in Africa is largely the fault of the two previous popes who have condemn the use of condoms. An estimated 1.1 people died in Africa from AIDS in 2013. Do you consider that insignificant?

Now if you are an emotionally immature brat trying to make a Straw Man argument that I'm saying all people who are deluded into believing in a god are monsters, well, prepare for an ass-kicking. I've always attacked religion and faith, not the religious and faithful. So please, make that Straw Man argument so I can tear you a new one.

humanity says

This is where we see how much of a black and white thinker you are.

You are a lying sack of shit and you're still hiding behind baseless ad hominem attacks. I could just as easily accuse you of being a "black-n-white thinker" and dismiss you as a loon. There is certainly more evidence in your writing. Nonetheless, I'm taking the time to ridicule every ridiculous point you make whereas you are completely ignoring the arguments I've made in your attacks.

humanity says

You can't deal with not knowing one way or the other for sure.

I have no problem that mankind's knowledge is incomplete. However, that does not mean that mankind knows nothing.

And in the cases where we don't know an answer, it is far more honest to say that we don't know than to assume a false answer like "god". I have argued this point for years, so your statement is yet another lie.

However, as I have demonstrated in numerous proofs, I can know with no doubt that certain classes of gods cannot exist, including all the gods of the major monotheistic religions. I can know this for the exact same reason I can know the square root of two is irrational. If you are unwilling or incapable of understanding this, then again it is solely your failing. I have explained it many times. Ask questions if you don't understand.

By the way, assuming that there is only one god is a far greater leap than assuming there are none.

So, I think you are the one who can't deal with the fact that your fantasy has been discredited.

humanity says

Most great mystics or whatever you want to call them, the greatest "holy men' (for lack of a better term), are agnostic to somewhere a little on the believing side of agnostic.

Telling lies to foolish people and convincing them of falsehoods does not make one great. Explaining the universe accurately and clearly does. Carl Sagan was a great man. Your holy men are not.

humanity says

By the way. I have never said that atheism is a religion.

It's justs Dan's proselytize version which is, maybe to a lessor degree Bill Maher's version.

Contradiction much? You refute calling atheism a religion and then do just that. Well, guess what, you are wrong on both counts.

What I'm doing isn't proselytizing. It's educating. The difference is that I deal in verifiable facts, not superstitious beliefs. That's a big difference. To equate evolution to intelligent design is simply stupid.

humanity says

. I guess when someone is strongly indoctrinated as a child into Catholicism it's sometimes so hard to undue the effect, without a lot of overboard hostility toward religion later, especially for example in Dan's case. One can only imagine how strong his faith was when he was seven.

Once again you are pulling shit out of your ass for which you have no evidence. Your statements are yet another transparent ad hominem meant to distract from the arguments you cannot refute. The fact is it doesn't matter who I am or even what I am. I could be a figment of your imagination and it would not invalidate the arguments I've made here. A concept that is valid is valid no matter where it originates. The messenger is irrelevant.

Those who attack the messenger are pussies who cannot attack the message. Their positions are as weak as their minds.

humanity says

We all know countless ways religion has been a negative force, and countless positives as well.

That's a cop out. The good done in the name of religion would be done without religion or superstition. Man does not need lies to be noble and compassionate. And yes, there would be evil done with or without religion, but the greatest and most dangerous evils in our world are the direct result of religion. One only has to take a look at the Middle East to confirm that.

humanity says

The problem is the generalization that it always is, or that in total it is negative.

Completely false. Without generalization no book on any topic would have ever been written.

Furthermore, the statement that there is no god and all monotheistic religions are based on lies is not a generalization. It is simply a true statement that you don't like and don't want others accepting. Nor was anything that Sam Harris stated in the original video a generalization. He was quite specific in all his statements.

humanity says

Ironic that unlike most great thinkers, Dan somehow has God like powers to somehow know the answer to these questions.

What a piece of work is a man!
How noble in reason,
How infinite in faculty!
In form and moving how express and admirable!
In action how like an angel,
In apprehension how like a god!

Shakespeare would agree with you that the power to think rationally and comprehend things is god-like. However, I believe that all of mankind today should have these powers. The ability to reason should not be reserved for the gods as you suggest, but enjoyed by any educated and mathematically literate person.

How dare you deride wisdom, intelligence, reasoning, and clear contemplation? Who are you to judge the wonders of critical thinking as vile and base? Who are you to promote ignorance and darkness and a return to barbarity of the Bronze Age? Who are you to obscure the beauty of the natural world from others with the pestilent vapors of ignorance and superstition? Man delights not the Danish prince and you make a compelling reason why.

humanity says

Read the arguments for and against. DO you need to decide which is correct ? Or can you just appreciate the theory and the implications, and even the arguments against it?

If you are going to base important decisions on something, you'd had better be damn certain it's true. Take the 12-year-old girl who committed suicide because of the lie of the Christian afterlife. Do you think that's a wash? Take the senator from Oklahoma who blocks legislation to deal with climate change because "god is up there controlling the climate". Yeah, we need facts not lies when it comes to national policies and global problems.

If religion were just verbal masturbation like tarot card readings and people didn't make major life decisions based on them, didn't vote for candidates based on them, and didn't make policy or start wars based on them, then we could ignore religion as a minor vice like tarot card readers and fortune tellers. But that is not the world we live in. Religion affects the education of our children; misinforming them about how the universe works and polluting their minds before they have the chance to fight back. The afterlife lie causes people to make become suicide bombers and to waste what precious time they have. The god lie is used to justify wars and vile policies in our very own Senate. False religion has a major influence on our society today.

And the bottom line is that it is false. Not once has anyone stood up to defend the outright lies of all the religions from creation myths to afterlife myths, from miracles to faith healing, or regarding a god who was quite chummy two to ten thousand years ago appearing as booming voices and burning bushes and parting seas, but for some reason goes to extreme lengths to keep his existence secret today. Hey god, why don't you appear as a burning bush on the Whitehouse lawn. It would be a far more effective way to get your message across than talking inside the head of some nut job.

humanity says

Okay. Well we can agree on that. Even he knows it, and it might more his forum persona than his real life persona. One would have to hope he behaves a little different in real life.

I stand firmly in my convictions, which are grounded in fact. Because you don't like my convictions, you call standing up for them arrogance instead of resolution. People like you referred to Martin Luther King, Jr. as arrogant and an uppity nigger for refusing to back down on the issue of civil rights. To attack a person's character simply because you oppose his political position says far more about you than your opponent.

And no, I'm not comparing me to MLK. I'm comparing you to the people who called MLK an uppity nigger.

marcus says

You obviously haven't read Dan's extensive "proof" that God does not exist. You can't prove something doesn't exist without getting very much into what it is.

1. Proofs, not proof. There are many.
2. What I did was address every single class of god one by one. You can break down any multitude into distinct classes and take them case by case.

marcus says

He takes a straw man definition of God

I'll take any definition of god. And by the way, if you think that any of the definitions of god I used in any of my proofs were Straw Man, then point them out. I used the most well-known and widely accepted definitions and I represented them in their best forms. For example, the Standard Monotheist God or SMG is a being who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all good. This is exactly what core Christianity, Islam, and Judaism teach. How the fuck is that a Straw Man?

And don't try to bullshit that there are other definitions, because I represented them as well.

By the way, I'm still waiting for a response to

Dan8267 says

But I'll call your bluff. Define god any way you like. I'll demonstrate one of four things.

1. Your god does not exist using a priori logic.

2. No one prays to your god and no one looks to him for moral guidance. Your god isn't the god you really advocate.

3. Your "definition" of god is meaningless bullshit masquerading as a definition. You deliberately chose wording to make the issue impossible to discuss and are hoping to add enough Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt or FUD to get people to believe the whole subject is a wash. This is exactly what climate change deniers do.

4. Your god is a superhero like all other polytheistic gods. It is not what monotheists believe in god.

The gauntlet has been thrown. Chances are you'll pussy out.

Looks like Marcus did pussy out.

I'll take on any theist using any definition of god any place any time any plane of existence. In fact, back when PatNet had that ask an expert feature, I challenged the pope on the question of the morality of gay butt sex. The pope chicken-shitted out.

And the reason I'm so confident? It's easy to defend a position that is true. Damn easy. It takes no skill to defend the truth because evidence and reasoning support the truth so well. Now if I had to defend a bullshit lie like spirituality, I wouldn't be so confident.

marcus says

Nice try. I wasn't trolling you. This is a perfect example of your childishness and your emotion and ego driven point of view on this subject.

Once again, Marcus demonstrates the lowest level of the argument pyramid.

Dan8267 says

marcus says

Dan isn't so good at navigating nuance

I develop software for a living. I handle detail and nuance far better than you could ever hope to. What you are doing here is called a cop out. You are using a trite platitude to avoid having to address well-supported arguments.

marcus says

Rin says

I'd much rather have Dan as my defense attorney than you

I'm not so sure. Dan isn't so good at navigating nuance, plus his people skills are seriously lacking. He'd piss off the judge and the jury, by implying they are morons.

Actually, INTJs make excellent lawyers because of their great attention to detail and nuance. I find it hilarious that anyone would accuse an INTJ of not being aware of nuance when usually people complain about that INTJs are far too detailed and nuanced in their analysis.

Nonetheless, I chose not to enter law because I could not stand the idea of being a professional liar advocating bad things because that's where the money is. If you want to know what kind of a lawyer I would be, watch 12 Angry Men. It's about a jury, but the character played by Henry Fonda is pretty well representative of my view of courts and justice. Actually, watch the movie regardless. Everyone should see it, especially anyone serving on a jury.

marcus says

The real battles are fought and won closer to the middle.

There isn't a middle ground in whether or not a god exists. It's pretty much a binary condition.

Dan8267 says

If you want to know what kind of a lawyer I would be, watch 12 Angry Men. It's about a jury, but the character played by Henry Fonda is pretty well representative of my view of courts and justice. Actually, watch the movie regardless. Everyone should see it, especially anyone serving on a jury.

Dan, are you and I playing good cop and bad cop with Marcus?

while you boys are playing with each other i'll be out porking the hoes in montreal...

Rin says

Everyone should see it, especially anyone serving on a jury.

Dan, are you and I playing good cop and bad cop with Marcus?

SoftShell says

while you boys are playing with each other i'll be out porking the hoes in montreal...

Yeah right, your drive between Brilliant OH and Montreal QC is 11-12 hours.

I can make that trip in ~5 hrs.

Dan8267 says

Your opinion does not reflect reality. I criticize religion and superstition because they need to be criticized. Only an emotionally immature person views an adult debate on an important subject matter as arrogance.

He was more likely referring to comments like this one:

Dan8267 says

I need no sympathy from inferiors.

Rin says

Dan, are you and I playing good cop and bad cop with Marcus?

No, he has no information of value. Let's play bad cop, worse cop.

Bigsby says

This isn't an issue of middle.

Sure it is. Say some rabid fundamentalists want to make science books less science based, or they want to kill abortion doctors. The laws preventing them from doing these things will come from mainstream Americans.

I will grant you, that the shrinkage of moderate established religions and growth of the evangelicals is a little scary, but the secular foundation is still very much intact.

Bigsby says

He was more likely referring to comments like this one:

A person incapable of even discussing the topic at hand is an inferior. I can respect people with different opinions and values, as long as they aren't evil values, but I cannot respect someone who substitutes ad hominems for addressing the issues. It's what politicians do. We need policy makers, not politicians.

marcus says

Dan8267 says

I need no sympathy from inferiors.

you gotta love it.

Respect has to be earned. You have earned only derision.

Dan8267 says

However, as I have demonstrated in numerous proofs

I have to admit, you're still amusing. Especially when you get all hot and bothered. The primary reasonwhy I don't engage you is because I have nothing to argue. I'm not arguing that God exists. I surely don't have any intention of trying to convince anyone that you can't prove the non existence of God. The very fact that you think you can says everything.

Also, why should I argue with you. Every time that I've made a total fool of you in the past, the only thing that happens is you start throwing a hissy fit, showing yourself to be more of child than anyone had previously imagined.

marcus says

Sure it is. Say some rabid fundamentalists want to make science books less science based, or they want to kill abortion doctors. The laws preventing them from doing these things will come from mainstream Americans.

I will grant you, that the shrinkage of moderate established religions and growth of the evangelicals is a little scary, but the secular foundation is still very much intact.

That isn't the middle. Touting the place of Middle America wasn't the point. Science books should be science. I take it from your perspective that it's OK to toss in a bit of creationism or God speak to balance out that damn theory of evolution - is that not the argument from the 'middle?'
Now you may argue for less stridency from the likes of Dan, but that is merely asking for a change in the way the message is delivered, not the message.

marcus says

Also, why should I argue with you. Every time that I've made a total fool of you in the past, the only thing that happens is you start throwing a hissy fit, showing yourself to be more of child than anyone had previously imagined.

Come on Marcus, when did you make a total fool of him? Saying is not doing.

Dan8267 says

A person incapable of even discussing the topic at hand is an inferior. I can respect people with different opinions and values, as long as they aren't evil values, but I cannot respect someone who substitutes ad hominems for addressing the issues. It's what politicians do. We need policy makers, not politicians.

Your points are good enough. You only really do a disservice to yourself tossing in those kind of remarks.

marcus says

growth of the evangelicals is a little scary, but the secular foundation is still very much intact.

marcus says

I'm not arguing that God exists. I surely don't have any intention of trying to convince anyone that you can't prove the non existence of God. The very fact that you think you can says everything.

Between the above two remarks, why are you here Marcus?

For one, I do believe in *something*, though I'm not willing to talk about it because it's no one else's business.

With that stated, I have no problems with Dan, talking trash about religious types. Those ppl are insecure, control freaks. Ppl, who I care nothing for.

My beliefs and practices have nothing to do with bunch of ppl, seeking Pharisee status in American society.

Those evangelicals can go f'ck themselves.

Rin says

why are you here Marcus?

Marcus has a compulsive need to troll, even using a separate browser to stalk the dozens of people (s)he claims to Ignore.

curious2 says

Rin says

why are you here Marcus?

Marcus has a compulsive need to troll, even using a separate browser to stalk the dozens of people (s)he claims to ignore

That's ok, I just want to make it apparent to him and others.