Who do you support for U.S. Senate in...

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#29828 Dec 6, 2012
Makin bacon wrote:
<quoted text>
Mike, I did a little research and pardon the fact that I can't post any links because I had two power outages within a few minutes and lost the name of the sites.
I wrote this one down there, out of the history of wars the total given was 1763 only 123 were because of religious beliefs and this would be 6.98%. This can be found in Philips and Axelrod's 3 Volume Encylopedia of Wars. I also went to a site by an athiest and while writing down his statistics I had another power outage and didn't get his name . He stated or "ceded" that his statistics are closer to 16% of wars being because of religion. I didn't get a chance to read either sites' opinion of 9/11. However today as I was the news regarding the lunatic in Syria threatening to nerve gas his own people, I haven't heard anything about religion mentioned. Not saying that's not the reason, just saying I haven't heard it as a reason.
IMO, 9/11 had little to do with religion and more to do with them being pissed at the U.S. I never heard the attack on the WTC was motivated by religion. I think we would be foolish to disregard there are power, money hungry dictators that are willing to start wars and kill to acquire power, money and land. For example, if the Castro brothers started a war (as if), I know they don't give two hoots in hell about religion, it would be about power and monetary gain. Don't be so quick to blame everything on religion because there are just flat out evil people in this world and they kill or war for a cause bigger than some god they claim to worship.
For the record, I never once said all war was of religion, or even close. So I am not sure why you are even arguing this. I do believe many wars are caused by religion, or are at least fuel to prolong wars. I have seen history books that claim more wars were of religious disputes than most historians wish to acknowledge. It is really hard to definitively prove on way or the other.
If you look at the war in Iraq for example, you will see Bush give several different reasons for invasion, at several different times, depending on what was known at the time.
So you can imagine the various historical claims to be made about Iraq down the road.

I am shocked you have never heard the accusation that 9/11 was religious based. I thought at least most people agreed it was a large part of the attack. So to be ignorant of the accusation is mind-blowing.

I will have to do a bit of research to find evidences and claims by the hijackers that show it was religious based.

First, I would like to know why you feel they were so mad at us? I think it is due to our intrusion onto their ways. And the belief of Islam is, all of their ways and traditions are of and for their god. Thus when they feel any intrusion, they are seeing it as an attack on their faith based ways. This is why they use the term 'infidels' to refer to America.

One reason Bin Laden gave for the attack was due to the first gulf war in Iraq. But likely not the way you would think. You see, Bin Laden petitioned Saudi Arabia to allow his(Bin Laden) troops to fight against Saddam for invading Kuwait. Saudi Arabia pushed for the US to invade over Bin Laden. Not sure of all the details on this. Evidently Bin Laden was upset Saddam invaded a sovereign Islamic nation, thus Bin Laden considered him an infidel.
So Bin Laden was Pissed America fought any Muslims in Iraq.
You see, Bin Laden was not upset Saddam was attacked, he was upset due to it being Christians who did it. Thus all about religion.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#29829 Dec 6, 2012
Snore wrote:
<quoted text>Imo, it's pointless to "debate" with Mike on any front, ESPECIALLY religion. You're wasting your valuable energy on that subject matter. I wonder what the "course" of conversation is during CHRISTMAS feasts are like? I believe Mike is simply addicted to his prejudices period.
Trying to stifle debate on a debate forum?
Contradiction.

Never had a religious debate at a Christmas dinner. Someone asked me last year at the feast if I did not believe in anything(as in a god). I said no, and left it at that.

You see, I try to leave the uncomfortable debates the forums for debate, such as this forum. You see, this is a debate forum, not a pat your buddies on the back forum and coddle the opposition forum. It is a debate forum. Got that? Is this really to hard for you to understand?

“Vote”

Since: May 12

Houston

#29830 Dec 6, 2012
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Trying to stifle debate on a debate forum?
Contradiction.
Never had a religious debate at a Christmas dinner. Someone asked me last year at the feast if I did not believe in anything(as in a god). I said no, and left it at that.
You see, I try to leave the uncomfortable debates the forums for debate, such as this forum. You see, this is a debate forum, not a pat your buddies on the back forum and coddle the opposition forum. It is a debate forum. Got that? Is this really to hard for you to understand?
It says...this is a"forum".Doesn't say"debate"anywhere.

“Vote”

Since: May 12

Houston

#29831 Dec 6, 2012
Mike your reasons for insisting that everyone on this forum be hostile to each other eludes me.Mike, I try to talk to people on this forum as if they were sitting across from me.Some of the things you've said to me on this forum.....had you have said them to my face....would have resulted in a physical altercation.I feel as though intelligent people should be able to disagree without being insulting or uncivil.What do you think?

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#29832 Dec 6, 2012
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>For the record, I never once said all war was of religion, or even close. So I am not sure why you are even arguing this. I do believe many wars are caused by religion, or are at least fuel to prolong wars. I have seen history books that claim more wars were of religious disputes than most historians wish to acknowledge. It is really hard to definitively prove on way or the other.
If you look at the war in Iraq for example, you will see Bush give several different reasons for invasion, at several different times, depending on what was known at the time.
So you can imagine the various historical claims to be made about Iraq down the road.
I am shocked you have never heard the accusation that 9/11 was religious based. I thought at least most people agreed it was a large part of the attack. So to be ignorant of the accusation is mind-blowing.
I will have to do a bit of research to find evidences and claims by the hijackers that show it was religious based.
First, I would like to know why you feel they were so mad at us? I think it is due to our intrusion onto their ways. And the belief of Islam is, all of their ways and traditions are of and for their god. Thus when they feel any intrusion, they are seeing it as an attack on their faith based ways. This is why they use the term 'infidels' to refer to America.
One reason Bin Laden gave for the attack was due to the first gulf war in Iraq. But likely not the way you would think. You see, Bin Laden petitioned Saudi Arabia to allow his(Bin Laden) troops to fight against Saddam for invading Kuwait. Saudi Arabia pushed for the US to invade over Bin Laden. Not sure of all the details on this. Evidently Bin Laden was upset Saddam invaded a sovereign Islamic nation, thus Bin Laden considered him an infidel.
So Bin Laden was Pissed America fought any Muslims in Iraq.
You see, Bin Laden was not upset Saddam was attacked, he was upset due to it being Christians who did it. Thus all about religion.
Mike, Wiki gives differing reasons than you and maybe that's why I'm confused:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motives_for_the_...

With that being said, I always thought the attacks were the result of the U.S. not releasing the Blind Sheik, the man that orchestrated the WTC. It's not mind blowing to me that after the attack on the WTC that I would find a correlation between the 9/11 attack and repeated demands for his release because Bin Laden spoke frequently about it.

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#29833 Dec 6, 2012
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>For the record, I never once said all war was of religion, or even close. So I am not sure why you are even arguing this. I do believe many wars are caused by religion, or are at least fuel to prolong wars. I have seen history books that claim more wars were of religious disputes than most historians wish to acknowledge. It is really hard to definitively prove on way or the other.
If you look at the war in Iraq for example, you will see Bush give several different reasons for invasion, at several different times, depending on what was known at the time.
So you can imagine the various historical claims to be made about Iraq down the road.
I am shocked you have never heard the accusation that 9/11 was religious based. I thought at least most people agreed it was a large part of the attack. So to be ignorant of the accusation is mind-blowing.
I will have to do a bit of research to find evidences and claims by the hijackers that show it was religious based.
First, I would like to know why you feel they were so mad at us? I think it is due to our intrusion onto their ways. And the belief of Islam is, all of their ways and traditions are of and for their god. Thus when they feel any intrusion, they are seeing it as an attack on their faith based ways. This is why they use the term 'infidels' to refer to America.
One reason Bin Laden gave for the attack was due to the first gulf war in Iraq. But likely not the way you would think. You see, Bin Laden petitioned Saudi Arabia to allow his(Bin Laden) troops to fight against Saddam for invading Kuwait. Saudi Arabia pushed for the US to invade over Bin Laden. Not sure of all the details on this. Evidently Bin Laden was upset Saddam invaded a sovereign Islamic nation, thus Bin Laden considered him an infidel.
So Bin Laden was Pissed America fought any Muslims in Iraq.
You see, Bin Laden was not upset Saddam was attacked, he was upset due to it being Christians who did it. Thus all about religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O sama_bin_Laden

"God knows it did not cross our minds to attack the Towers, but after the situation became unbearable—and we witnessed the injustice and tyranny of the American-Israeli alliance against our people in Palestine and Lebanon—I thought about it. And the events that affected me directly were that of 1982 and the events that followed—when America allowed the Israelis to invade Lebanon, helped by the U.S. Sixth Fleet. As I watched the destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me punish the unjust the same way: to destroy towers in America so it could taste some of what we are tasting and to stop killing our children and women."

— Osama bin Laden, 2004

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#29834 Dec 6, 2012
emlu wrote:
Someone sent me this today in reference to Christmas feasts, I like it....
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather
to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand and wine in the other,
body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what
a ride!"
If you use your body in a healthy way, one can use it longer before the grave comes. And one can likely stay fit enough to do what he wishes even into old age. Long term enjoyment is the option I shoot for. You see, hedonism can come in healthy, moral ways.

Seeing as how I feel this is the only life I will get, I try to make it long and enjoyable. One can enjoy some chocolate and wine in moderation for the best of both worlds.

“Anasasis Xenophontis.”

Since: Dec 08

over there.

#29835 Dec 6, 2012
waco1909 wrote:
<quoted text> Hate always finds a way there seven....free flow of information is the biggest enemy for muslims....their women are saying hmmmm....why can't I GO TO SCHOOL? WHY CAN'T I DRIVE? Why can't I be a DOCTOR?
exact point of my hatred towards religion.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#29836 Dec 6, 2012
emlu wrote:
<quoted text> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden
"God knows it did not cross our minds to attack the Towers, but after the situation became unbearable—and we witnessed the injustice and tyranny of the American-Israeli alliance against our people in Palestine and Lebanon—I thought about it. And the events that affected me directly were that of 1982 and the events that followed—when America allowed the Israelis to invade Lebanon, helped by the U.S. Sixth Fleet. As I watched the destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me punish the unjust the same way: to destroy towers in America so it could taste some of what we are tasting and to stop killing our children and women."
— Osama bin Laden, 2004
And "our people" likely means "Islamic people" as we can see from so much Bin Laden has said. Trying to separate the two is to ignore so many of his statements.

“Anasasis Xenophontis.”

Since: Dec 08

over there.

#29837 Dec 6, 2012
Makin bacon wrote:
<quoted text>
Work two more years and you may learn the difference in grammar and spelling. I questioned your spelling, not your grammar.
spelling is a part of grammar, please i was a honors student in literature.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_spelling_conside...

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#29838 Dec 6, 2012
emlu wrote:
<quoted text> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden
"God knows it did not cross our minds to attack the Towers, but after the situation became unbearable—and we witnessed the injustice and tyranny of the American-Israeli alliance against our people in Palestine and Lebanon—I thought about it. And the events that affected me directly were that of 1982 and the events that followed—when America allowed the Israelis to invade Lebanon, helped by the U.S. Sixth Fleet. As I watched the destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me punish the unjust the same way: to destroy towers in America so it could taste some of what we are tasting and to stop killing our children and women."
— Osama bin Laden, 2004
Also from the same site.

According to former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer, who led the CIA's hunt for Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaeda leader was motivated by a belief that U.S. foreign policy has oppressed, killed, or otherwise harmed Muslims in the Middle East,[48] condensed in the phrase "They hate us for what we do, not who we are."
Bin Laden also said only the restoration of Sharia law would "set things right" in the Muslim world, and that alternatives such as "pan-Arabism, socialism, communism, democracy" must be opposed.[49] This belief, in conjunction with violent jihad, has sometimes been called Qutbism after being promoted by Sayyid Qutb.[50] Bin Laden believed that Afghanistan, under the rule of Mullah Omar's Taliban, was "the only Islamic country" in the Muslim world.[51] Bin Laden consistently dwelt on the need for violent jihad to right what he believed were injustices against Muslims perpetrated by the United States and sometimes by other non-Muslim states,[52] the need to eliminate the state of Israel, and the necessity of forcing the United States to withdraw from the Middle East. He also called on Americans to "reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling, and usury", in an October 2002 letter.[53]

So it looks as if Bin Laden felt America was attacking Islamic people and thus retaliated. Islam is a religion, not an ethnicity. Thus religious based.

Of course, religious or not, one in this region may have seen a need to attack America, but it was all so easy to do when people of blind faith feel it is about an attack of their god, and one would be rewarded in heaven for attacking.

This is the case in many wars. As I noted, the bible has many stories of Moses and his men attacking nations for similar ideals.
TSF

Fayetteville, NC

#29839 Dec 6, 2012
As your clarified perspective is not denial but based on your estimation of probability, I agree that is acceptable logic in terms of scientific thinking. Incidentally, Galileo and Newton were very religious persons but disconnected from the church dogma. My perception of religion is belief in and connection with God. I regard dogma as the representation of laws and ordinances imposed upon others by church organizations for the purpose of protecting the organization and forcing the assimilation of membership. The remarkable thing about humans is the widespread belief in God, whether that God would be Budda, Allah, Yahweh, Jesus , etc. That tells me that billions of human persons feel a connection to a God, and that connection is what I regard as religion. That connection is what I think St Thomas Aquinas was talking about when he said believers need no explaination and that no explaination is possible for non believers. An example would be the story of non believer Paul on the road to Damascus
when he was blinded for three days by a flash of perception. Afterwards, no explaination was necessary to him. Its kind of like studying fruitlessly for days to understand a complex mathematical theorum and being on the verge of giving up continuing to try, when suddenly, you understand and realize that it was actually simple to begin with. I am not trying to change your mind about God. I am just relating to you kind of what to expect when/if it happens to you.
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Just so you know, I have never denied the possibility of a god existing. I base my view on the likelihood of a god existing. I withhold belief due to the lack of likelihood.
When I say a specific god is a myth, it is more due to the knowns about the god and evidence against the claims of said god.
For example, the god of the bible is said to have created all "kinds" (as in all species) in one day. Science can show massive amounts of evidence that the different kinds of animals came to be in stages of time, not even close to what the bible claims.
This is why literalist believers claim evolution is false. Now if you wish to claim the bible is of metaphor and not literal, your god is not the god I might be talking about.
Now when you speak of understanding the mind of god, I think it is only human to project what the god may be thinking. Any all powerful god would surely understand this human instinct.
The bible describes what god wants, and thus man will project what the god may think. Just as when you try to understand the mind of your mate.
If you cannot comprehend the mind of your god, then just what are you thinking of your god? What is it you think your god does or wants? I am asking, what is the point of belief in your god, if you do not know what he wants or thinks?
If the bible is of metaphor, then would that not mean it is a guide to how god thinks and thus wants you to act?
BTW, most scientists are agnostic. It is the "open minded" way.
I think technically most atheists are agnostic. Most would be open to the idea a god exist, they just withhold belief until evidence or some better reasoning is produced to show likelihood.
I also think many agnostics are also atheist, as they do not believe in a theistic god, they just remain open to the idea a bit more.
Even prominent atheist, Richard Dawkins, when penned down on this, says he is technically agnostic, because he leaves open a .01% chance a god could exist.
So they problem is, the English language is not sufficient in categorizing us to well. I have seen countless debates of the definitions of these terms.
Note, there is no term for the non belief in unicorns. And if one does not see a likelihood they exist, he need not withhold disbelief.
You note scripture, so does that mean you think one source of scripture is more accurate than any others?

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#29840 Dec 6, 2012
Makin bacon wrote:
<quoted text>
Mike, Wiki gives differing reasons than you and maybe that's why I'm confused:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motives_for_the_...
With that being said, I always thought the attacks were the result of the U.S. not releasing the Blind Sheik, the man that orchestrated the WTC. It's not mind blowing to me that after the attack on the WTC that I would find a correlation between the 9/11 attack and repeated demands for his release because Bin Laden spoke frequently about it.
Wiki states their were various reasons given, and experts postulate on them.
This is also from the site you posted.

..On that basis, and in compliance with Allah's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims: The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies—civilians and military—is an individual duty for every Muslim..."[7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motives_for_the_...

Some middle-east scholars like Michael Scott Doran and Peter Bergen have argued that 9/11 was a strategic way to provoke America into a war that incites a pan-Islamist revolution.
Michael Scott Doran argued that the attacks are best understood as being part of a religious conflict within the Muslim world. In an essay, Doran argued that Bin Laden's followers: "consider themselves an island of true believers surrounded by a sea of iniquity".[17] Doran further argued that bin Laden hoped U.S. retaliation would unite the faithful against the West, sparking revolutions in Arab nations and elsewhere; and that the Osama bin Laden videos were attempting to provoke a visceral reaction in the Middle East aimed at a violent reaction by Muslim citizens to increased U.S. involvement in their region.[18]
Correspondent Peter Bergen argued that the attacks were part of a plan to cause the United States to increase its military and cultural presence in the Middle East, thereby forcing Muslims to confront the idea of a non-Muslim government and establish conservative Islamic governments in the region.[19]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motives_for_the_...

As you likely know, wiki does not go to great depths on many things. Something this large is complex. To summarize it into a wiki page would leave out massive amounts of the story.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#29841 Dec 6, 2012
Makin bacon wrote:
<quoted text>
Mike, Wiki gives differing reasons than you and maybe that's why I'm confused:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motives_for_the_...
With that being said, I always thought the attacks were the result of the U.S. not releasing the Blind Sheik, the man that orchestrated the WTC. It's not mind blowing to me that after the attack on the WTC that I would find a correlation between the 9/11 attack and repeated demands for his release because Bin Laden spoke frequently about it.
Of course, much of the tension is between Muslims and the Jews battle over holy land. This becomes a tit for tat fight that is fueled by ideas of religion.
As you likely see in the wiki site, part of the dispute is Israel and America support for them.

“Vote”

Since: May 12

Houston

#29842 Dec 6, 2012
TSF wrote:
As your clarified perspective is not denial but based on your estimation of probability, I agree that is acceptable logic in terms of scientific thinking. Incidentally, Galileo and Newton were very religious persons but disconnected from the church dogma. My perception of religion is belief in and connection with God. I regard dogma as the representation of laws and ordinances imposed upon others by church organizations for the purpose of protecting the organization and forcing the assimilation of membership. The remarkable thing about humans is the widespread belief in God, whether that God would be Budda, Allah, Yahweh, Jesus , etc. That tells me that billions of human persons feel a connection to a God, and that connection is what I regard as religion. That connection is what I think St Thomas Aquinas was talking about when he said believers need no explaination and that no explaination is possible for non believers. An example would be the story of non believer Paul on the road to Damascus
when he was blinded for three days by a flash of perception. Afterwards, no explaination was necessary to him. Its kind of like studying fruitlessly for days to understand a complex mathematical theorum and being on the verge of giving up continuing to try, when suddenly, you understand and realize that it was actually simple to begin with. I am not trying to change your mind about God. I am just relating to you kind of what to expect when/if it happens to you.
<quoted text>
The quality of your posts is undeniable.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#29843 Dec 6, 2012
sevenSecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
spelling is a part of grammar, please i was a honors student in literature.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_spelling_conside...
http://www.answers.com/topic/grammar

Grammar is the structure of a sentence. Words form the structure of the sentence. "Two" different actions that form a cohesive sentence. If you spell a word incorrectly, it can effect the structure of your sentence, thus "two" different meanings may occur or the sentence could make no sense at all. Take your pick. I bet in your honors math class, you didn't use "too" for the number "two"??

“Vote”

Since: May 12

Houston

#29844 Dec 6, 2012
sevenSecrets wrote:
<quoted text>exact point of my hatred towards religion.
My relationship with GOD has nothing to do with religion.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#29845 Dec 6, 2012
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Wiki states their were various reasons given, and experts postulate on them.
This is also from the site you posted.
..On that basis, and in compliance with Allah's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims: The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies—civilians and military—is an individual duty for every Muslim..."[7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motives_for_the_...
Some middle-east scholars like Michael Scott Doran and Peter Bergen have argued that 9/11 was a strategic way to provoke America into a war that incites a pan-Islamist revolution.
Michael Scott Doran argued that the attacks are best understood as being part of a religious conflict within the Muslim world. In an essay, Doran argued that Bin Laden's followers: "consider themselves an island of true believers surrounded by a sea of iniquity".[17] Doran further argued that bin Laden hoped U.S. retaliation would unite the faithful against the West, sparking revolutions in Arab nations and elsewhere; and that the Osama bin Laden videos were attempting to provoke a visceral reaction in the Middle East aimed at a violent reaction by Muslim citizens to increased U.S. involvement in their region.[18]
Correspondent Peter Bergen argued that the attacks were part of a plan to cause the United States to increase its military and cultural presence in the Middle East, thereby forcing Muslims to confront the idea of a non-Muslim government and establish conservative Islamic governments in the region.[19]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motives_for_the_...
As you likely know, wiki does not go to great depths on many things. Something this large is complex. To summarize it into a wiki page would leave out massive amounts of the story.
We only have so much to work with on Wiki and if that's the best we can do for this forum without pasting a dissertation, that's all we got. However, wiki did speak about the Blind Sheik and Bin Laden wanting his release. I always thought it was just payback because Bin Laden and the boys wanted him back to plan more attack.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#29846 Dec 6, 2012
TSF wrote:
As your clarified perspective is not denial but based on your estimation of probability, I agree that is acceptable logic in terms of scientific thinking. Incidentally, Galileo and Newton were very religious persons but disconnected from the church dogma. My perception of religion is belief in and connection with God. I regard dogma as the representation of laws and ordinances imposed upon others by church organizations for the purpose of protecting the organization and forcing the assimilation of membership. The remarkable thing about humans is the widespread belief in God, whether that God would be Budda, Allah, Yahweh, Jesus , etc. That tells me that billions of human persons feel a connection to a God, and that connection is what I regard as religion. That connection is what I think St Thomas Aquinas was talking about when he said believers need no explaination and that no explaination is possible for non believers. An example would be the story of non believer Paul on the road to Damascus
when he was blinded for three days by a flash of perception. Afterwards, no explaination was necessary to him. Its kind of like studying fruitlessly for days to understand a complex mathematical theorum and being on the verge of giving up continuing to try, when suddenly, you understand and realize that it was actually simple to begin with. I am not trying to change your mind about God. I am just relating to you kind of what to expect when/if it happens to you.
<quoted text>
TSF, not only are you good with numbers, but you rock on religion!!

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#29847 Dec 6, 2012
TSF wrote:
As your clarified perspective is not denial but based on your estimation of probability, I agree that is acceptable logic in terms of scientific thinking. Incidentally, Galileo and Newton were very religious persons but disconnected from the church dogma. My perception of religion is belief in and connection with God. I regard dogma as the representation of laws and ordinances imposed upon others by church organizations for the purpose of protecting the organization and forcing the assimilation of membership. The remarkable thing about humans is the widespread belief in God, whether that God would be Budda, Allah, Yahweh, Jesus , etc. That tells me that billions of human persons feel a connection to a God, and that connection is what I regard as religion. That connection is what I think St Thomas Aquinas was talking about when he said believers need no explaination and that no explaination is possible for non believers. An example would be the story of non believer Paul on the road to Damascus
when he was blinded for three days by a flash of perception. Afterwards, no explaination was necessary to him. Its kind of like studying fruitlessly for days to understand a complex mathematical theorum and being on the verge of giving up continuing to try, when suddenly, you understand and realize that it was actually simple to begin with. I am not trying to change your mind about God. I am just relating to you kind of what to expect when/if it happens to you.
<quoted text>
I feel you wish to put all blame on dogma, because to blame what you feel is religion, would be to indict yourself.
As you stated, religion is of ones perception. And that perception can be of a dogmatic state and often is. So trying to distance them seems disingenuous.

The large number of believers is not evidence of a god. It is only evidence to blind faith beliefs. And thinking one knows the answers as the blind faith believers often do, only shows an arrogance of knowledge with zero evidence for support. And that can be dangerous and counterproductive to progress and morality.

Galileo and Newton were Pre Darwin. They lived in times of little science compared to today. There were little or no answers to so many questions of origins in those times. I can understand why they would be believers in a god. They knew nothing of the big bang, nor evolution. So citing their faith does not mean much.

If you look at the stats on modern scientists and faith, you will see there is little faith there. We have just now come to an age of science that enough questions can be answered, that one feels no real need to look to superstition for causes.

If you look at the stats, you will see the more religious one is in America, the less likely he believes in evolution. Thus evidence of the conflict of science and religion.

One tends to believe what his parents believe and was ingrained into his mentality as a child. If you look at the stats, 80% of all people follow the religion of their parents. So this stat is evidence that it is not some supernatural reason one believes what he believes, it is a matter of culture. Religion is what is being passed on down the family line from the days of long ago, when science was little. Some will introspect that culture and if the evidence outweighs the traditional beliefs, he might turn from the faith.

Sadly, dogma tells one to not listen to this introspection. Some dogma says it is the devil speaking. Clearly this is just propaganda invented to keep followers. But clearly it works. So many refuse to introspect their beliefs. So many refuse to even look at the arguments of the faith. They feel as Aquinas said, and thus do not need to do so.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Morganton Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
wanna be gangster girls at case farms 8 hr LeleFROMthedowell 4
please report all foodstamp fraud. 16 hr John 2
Loud Booms at 4am? Wed Becky 3
Completely nude sunbathing chick Jul 27 Scooter 4
does anyone not care about whats going on at st... Jul 26 Dangalang 4
guinea pig Jul 26 old patient 1
News Morganton Development Readies for Customers Jul 25 Disappointed 2

Morganton Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Morganton Mortgages