victor809
13 years ago

You're becoming a one trick pony. Your narrow minded thought process is just as stifling as a devout religious zealot.
I know numerous well schooled scientists and engineers that don't let "science" interfere with living. Using your logic, you couldn't embrace love or understand guilt. And maybe these emotions are not important to you, but they help define who we are and coupled with our opposable thumbs have helped determined our rank on the food chain.

In other words, stop being pretentious.

tailgater wrote:


It's what I'm good at, play to your strengths.
How could "science" interfere with living? I'm simply talking about not believing in something that seems patently improbable without sufficient evidence. Ultimately, I'm talking about NOT letting your life be pushed around by unnecessary dogma, theoretically allowing you more freedom to live it. As for emotions, how would I not understand them? They're sophisticated chemical reactions, they're real and they impact everyone who has been conditioned with them. Whats the big deal?



Let's use some of your logic on this one, Vic.
Can you prove to us that a candidate will use his faith in making our laws, simply because they express their faith openly and in a caring manner when addressing their public?
Seems to me that by your logic, this shouldn't even be a discussion. Because the overwhelming proof suggests that faith in God does NOT define our laws over the past 40 years.
In fact, considering your detailed, robotic and sytematic thought process, it is alarming to hear you suggest such observations.
Heck, if you keep this up, we may think you're human.


Of course I have no proof they will use faith in making their laws(unless they say they will, then while that isn't proof they'll follow through, it certainly suggests they intend to). However, I can say with absolute certainty that a religious politician is significantly more likely to have their religion influence their policy decisions than a non religious person. Hell, I'll even admit that using a religion to influence a decision does NOT mean that the decision will be a bad one (stopped clock is right twice a day). My concern is always that the decision making process would be based on something patently flawed. Saying "We should make murder against the law because the bible says it's a sin" is just as flawed a decision making process as saying "We should stone all single mothers because the bible says we should".

As for the track record of politicians over the past 40 years... I would suggest (could be wrong) that the amount of posturing around god (on both sides) has gotten much worse recently. And while this may just be empty campaign promises, I don't know that.
Brewha
13 years ago
Hmmm . . . .
It is becoming apparent that victor does not understand the role religion plays in our society.
bloody spaniard
13 years ago
^ Haven't read this thread but it appears Victor's either a glutton for punishment or a garrulous sort.:-"
HockeyDad
13 years ago

^ Haven't read this thread but it appears Victor's either a glutton for punishment or a garrulous sort.:-"

bloody spaniard wrote:




Well he hasn't been struck by lightning yet for his behaviour!
bloody spaniard
13 years ago
No, but I've heard his rash is spreading and his skin tags are falling off.
He doesn't like to talk about it.
victor809
13 years ago

^ Haven't read this thread but it appears Victor's either a glutton for punishment or a garrulous sort.:-"

bloody spaniard wrote:



Why does there have to be an "or" there?
tailgater
13 years ago


Of course I have no proof they will use faith in making their laws(unless they say they will, then while that isn't proof they'll follow through, it certainly suggests they intend to). However, I can say with absolute certainty that a religious politician is significantly more likely to have their religion influence their policy decisions than a non religious person. Hell, I'll even admit that using a religion to influence a decision does NOT mean that the decision will be a bad one (stopped clock is right twice a day). My concern is always that the decision making process would be based on something patently flawed. Saying "We should make murder against the law because the bible says it's a sin" is just as flawed a decision making process as saying "We should stone all single mothers because the bible says we should".

As for the track record of politicians over the past 40 years... I would suggest (could be wrong) that the amount of posturing around god (on both sides) has gotten much worse recently. And while this may just be empty campaign promises, I don't know that.

victor809 wrote:



But you're not afraid that politicians will "posture" based on their religion. You've stated that they must intend to act upon it.
I suggest that by an overwhelming majority, they have not.


Faith is as much a conviction as any emotion.
I don't understand how two dudes can lust after each other, but I accept it as real.
You hear somebody say "God Bless" and you surmise that they'll enact laws to make the Eucharist a mandatory fifth food group.

Science is important. Science is a tool.
But that doesn't mean that being a tool will make you important.

Now go say 10 Our Fathers and 20 Hail Marys.
God Bless.
frankj1
13 years ago

Well SOMEONE has to be making all those pamphlets the atheists keep leaving on my door.

Brewha wrote:


very funny.
Users browsing this topic