If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(RedState)   If the levers of State are to be wielded to enforce the commands of Scripture, such as not allowing gay marriage, then why the hell are we opposing Obamacare - which is the most Christ-like thing the government has ever done?   (redstate.com) divider line 522
    More: Interesting, obamacare, No Regrets, no compromise, protest vote, eternal life, same-sex marriages, Bob Dole, Biden  
•       •       •

4072 clicks; posted to Politics » on 31 Mar 2013 at 6:06 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



522 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-31 10:16:45 PM

GreatGlavinsGhost: BECAUSE HE'S BLACK!

/And Muslin.
//and atheist
///and soshulist and a commie to boot ...


I'm going with this theory.

shiat, my sister goes to church often and is the first one to biatch about people on welfare. But that's ok, just keep giving 10% of your money to the Catholic Church so they can pay off the sexual abuse.

How do you know your religion has a pedo problem? When they have their own secret rehab clinics for pedos.

shiat, just let everyone who wants buy into Medicare already. They didn't explain single payer well enough. I realized this when I had an argument with a republican buddy's wife and she was arguing that we should just have a big pool that people can buy into.

I told her, "Yeah, single payer, but you republicans wouldn't hear if it!"

These are also the two that biatch that government employees are paid too much and they are both government employees!
 
2013-03-31 10:17:32 PM

Barricaded Gunman: It's not very surprising that men predisposed to mystic thinking and rigid religious authority would be understanding of a woman with similar beliefs. Think about it... if you met a guy who seemed great, then found out he was a Scientologist, wouldn't it change your perception of him? Just knowing that he really believed all their nutty things that someone made up? Well that's how Christians tend to come across to those of us who don't have that set of beliefs.


No - I get it, I just wish people would have more of an honest discussion about it.

There are some people where their faith defines them and runs their life, some people who use faith to run others, and some people who make their faith part of their life.  I think it's a very important distinction and one worth acknowledging.
 
2013-03-31 10:17:41 PM
sugardave:

Ah, but I know their hearts.  This game is too easy, perhaps I should start a church!

No, actually you don't.  but thanks for playing.
 
2013-03-31 10:19:23 PM

rohar: Barricaded Gunman: It's not very surprising that men predisposed to mystic thinking and rigid religious authority would be understanding of a woman with similar beliefs. Think about it... if you met a guy who seemed great, then found out he was a Scientologist, wouldn't it change your perception of him? Just knowing that he really believed all their nutty things that someone made up? Well that's how Christians tend to come across to those of us who don't have that set of beliefs.

Uh, my wife's devoutly Christian.  I'm honestly agnostic.  Thanks for speaking for the rest of us, as if you have any idea how to be socially acceptable or how a society works.

/asshole


My wife is faithful, I am a lapsed Catholic/agnostic and we get along just fine. My wife's family are Presbyterians, my side is pretty much exclusively RCs and we don't know any anti-science, anti-woman nutjobs on either sides of our respective families. It's almost as if he is making a rash generalization based on fear and ignorance in trying to speak about a group of people who allegedly live their lives in fear and ignorance.

No one is that awesomely ironic though so I must assume I've misinterpreted something
 
2013-03-31 10:23:55 PM

dickfreckle: Yes, religion can make people's lives better. But in my opinion, it was you who improved your environment on your own. If it was God that inspired you, hey, good for you. People seem to like the idea of surrendering to a deity and giving the responsibility to him.  But God doesn't get people sober or fix their finances. People might assign the credit to him, but all along it was the individual who simply got his sh*t in order without realizing it.


I agree with you - I think that a lot of the time people also expect God to do those things.  The thing about God though, in my opinion, is that he gives us free will.  He gives us the tools to do what we need to do to get ourselves to a better place - but ultimately, we are the controllers of our destiny in live, and if we live by His guidelines and do good, good will eventually return to us.  I will be forever thankful for the church for instance, for giving me a support group to be able to begin to healing from the damage some areas of my life were causing me.
 
2013-03-31 10:24:29 PM
There are almost no actual Christians in the United States. Nearly everyone who claims to be Christian is actually a Paulist. It's like the New Testament never even happened.
 
2013-03-31 10:25:18 PM

TsukasaK: ox45tallboy: or refusing to hire you because of your unclean status?

I must point out that this would be illegal.


Illegal perhaps, but try and prove it
 
2013-03-31 10:26:10 PM

CanisNoir: And currently everyone has the right to get married, what I am saying is that I support states to decide whether or not to redefine it because each individuals vote matters more on the state and local level than it does on the national level.


So you're against DOMA then?
 
2013-03-31 10:26:14 PM
Anyways, I must go to bed!  Thank you Fark, for the surprising honesty and discussion about faith.  It's weird for me because I don't talk about it outside of my church but this was a great night for the first time talking about it somewhat openly.  :) :) :)

(Who would've thought it would happen on fark!!!)

Goodnight all! :)
 
2013-03-31 10:30:53 PM

skullkrusher: rohar: Barricaded Gunman: It's not very surprising that men predisposed to mystic thinking and rigid religious authority would be understanding of a woman with similar beliefs. Think about it... if you met a guy who seemed great, then found out he was a Scientologist, wouldn't it change your perception of him? Just knowing that he really believed all their nutty things that someone made up? Well that's how Christians tend to come across to those of us who don't have that set of beliefs.

Uh, my wife's devoutly Christian.  I'm honestly agnostic.  Thanks for speaking for the rest of us, as if you have any idea how to be socially acceptable or how a society works.

/asshole

My wife is faithful, I am a lapsed Catholic/agnostic and we get along just fine. My wife's family are Presbyterians, my side is pretty much exclusively RCs and we don't know any anti-science, anti-woman nutjobs on either sides of our respective families. It's almost as if he is making a rash generalization based on fear and ignorance in trying to speak about a group of people who allegedly live their lives in fear and ignorance.

No one is that awesomely ironic though so I must assume I've misinterpreted something


I'm not gonna touch it.  Too easy. :)
 
2013-03-31 10:31:20 PM

rohar: "If the Higgs Boson does exist, why haven't we seen it before!?"  You see how dumb that is now, but it seemed to make sense 10 years ago.  Thank God scientists are more rational than that.


I'm not a scientist, but I'm pretty sure that argument wouldn't have made sense 10 years ago, or at any time in the history of science.

Here is the thing: when mankind first thought up gods as an explanation for the world around them, they had a concept they didn't understand and were proposing a theory of how it worked.

So how does the sun rise? A god with a chariot puts it up there.  Fair enough.  Here is where religion deviates from science.

A scientist might propose something that turns out to be laughably wrong later on, but until he has proved it, he certainly isn't laying other civilizations to waste over their alternate theory that it is Sol flying around.

Furthermore, no one proposed the Higgs-Boson, to my knowledge, prior to having a gap in science that such a particle would flesh out.  Certainly no one had "seen it" at its first point of conception, but evidence that something like it might exist was the very grounds for it to be conceived. The religious, on the other hand, have all sorts of extraneous stories and beliefs about their mumbo jumbo that, instead of existing as an answer to a question people were asking, exist just for the hell of it.

People weren't running around wondering if multiple types of threads should be woven into a single tunic.  But then one day it found its way into the bible.   


Scientists, should they have found a way to fill the gap in knowledge that the higgs-boson was thought up to complete, would stop assuming the higgs-boson was there.  I hold nothing against an ancient greek person wondering if his black and yellow bile levels were properly in balance.  I would hold a great deal against someone today who read about the four humors and decided it was true zero evidence supporting it and a plethora of evidence supporting alternate theories.  Religious people do exactly that, however.  We have plenty of evidence to assume the earth isn't 6,000 years old, and yet you can find plenty of bible-thumpers who will stand by that.

Lastly, it is absolutely rational to dismiss extraordinary claims that lack any evidence whatsoever, let alone lack the extraordinary evidence that such claims should be able to come up with.
 
2013-03-31 10:31:34 PM

skilbride: Because anything that is touchable by man, is corruptible by man, but Christianity, at least with my church, gets it 90% of the way. The two closest to my belief system are Judism and Islam, and I have definite complaints with both of those - mainly the following of certain dogma... it's actually similar to the complaint I have with catholic churchs - that they place dogma above the basic teachings. That being said, since I tend to date only middle eastern guys, I actually tend to end up following Islamic dogma as well. I can't remember the last time I ate pork, and I always somehow end up fasting.


If I were around there I show you some bacon love to let you know what you've been missing.
 
2013-03-31 10:31:53 PM

Galileo's Daughter: sugardave:

Ah, but I know their hearts.  This game is too easy, perhaps I should start a church!

No, actually you don't.  but thanks for playing.


Sure I do!  We all know how to read each and every others' hearts.  I learned that straight from many religious leaders (both kinds; church-y and GOP) during this last election.  Maybe you need to go to a doctor or something and have your ability tested.
 
2013-03-31 10:34:58 PM

Smackledorfer: rohar: "If the Higgs Boson does exist, why haven't we seen it before!?"  You see how dumb that is now, but it seemed to make sense 10 years ago.  Thank God scientists are more rational than that.

I'm not a scientist, but I'm pretty sure that argument wouldn't have made sense 10 years ago, or at any time in the history of science.

Here is the thing: when mankind first thought up gods as an explanation for the world around them, they had a concept they didn't understand and were proposing a theory of how it worked.

So how does the sun rise? A god with a chariot puts it up there.  Fair enough.  Here is where religion deviates from science.

A scientist might propose something that turns out to be laughably wrong later on, but until he has proved it, he certainly isn't laying other civilizations to waste over their alternate theory that it is Sol flying around.

Furthermore, no one proposed the Higgs-Boson, to my knowledge, prior to having a gap in science that such a particle would flesh out.  Certainly no one had "seen it" at its first point of conception, but evidence that something like it might exist was the very grounds for it to be conceived. The religious, on the other hand, have all sorts of extraneous stories and beliefs about their mumbo jumbo that, instead of existing as an answer to a question people were asking, exist just for the hell of it.

People weren't running around wondering if multiple types of threads should be woven into a single tunic.  But then one day it found its way into the bible.   


Scientists, should they have found a way to fill the gap in knowledge that the higgs-boson was thought up to complete, would stop assuming the higgs-boson was there.  I hold nothing against an ancient greek person wondering if his black and yellow bile levels were properly in balance.  I would hold a great deal against someone today who read about the four humors and decided it was true zero evidence supporting it and a plethora of evidence supporting alt ...


Ah, but there's the defining difference.  "I don't have any evidence of such a thing" is perfectly scientific.  "I don't believe it exists because I've never seen it" is bullshiat.

Logic requires much of the practitioner, it constrains the mind.  "It seemed to make sense" isn't the same as "It was logical".

Now seems a perfectly good time to resurrect one of FARK's infamous questions:

Would you believe (P or Q) = (Q or P)?
 
2013-03-31 10:35:01 PM

rohar: I'm honestly agnostic.


Are you a theist or an atheist (you can't be neither)?
 
2013-03-31 10:35:23 PM

rohar: skullkrusher: rohar: Barricaded Gunman: It's not very surprising that men predisposed to mystic thinking and rigid religious authority would be understanding of a woman with similar beliefs. Think about it... if you met a guy who seemed great, then found out he was a Scientologist, wouldn't it change your perception of him? Just knowing that he really believed all their nutty things that someone made up? Well that's how Christians tend to come across to those of us who don't have that set of beliefs.

Uh, my wife's devoutly Christian.  I'm honestly agnostic.  Thanks for speaking for the rest of us, as if you have any idea how to be socially acceptable or how a society works.

/asshole

My wife is faithful, I am a lapsed Catholic/agnostic and we get along just fine. My wife's family are Presbyterians, my side is pretty much exclusively RCs and we don't know any anti-science, anti-woman nutjobs on either sides of our respective families. It's almost as if he is making a rash generalization based on fear and ignorance in trying to speak about a group of people who allegedly live their lives in fear and ignorance.

No one is that awesomely ironic though so I must assume I've misinterpreted something

I'm not gonna touch it.  Too easy. :)


touch it. Caress it. Make sweet, sweet low hanging fruit love to it
 
2013-03-31 10:36:51 PM

Smackledorfer: rohar: I'm honestly agnostic.

Are you a theist or an atheist (you can't be neither)?


I'm completely fascinated with religion.  I attend any number of religious events/sermons.  I don't believe in any of them.  I'm not sure what that makes me.
 
2013-03-31 10:37:02 PM

Green Scorpio: Jesus never suggested that the government should take from some, and give to others. All He ever said on the subject was to give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's. Rather He said God helps those who help themselves.


So.... you don't believe that Rome at the EXACT time Jesus said this was using tax money from the rich to provide food for the poor? And had been doing so for many years? And that this was definitely a very significant part (i.e., known to everyone, and a significant percentage of the budget) of the Roman government at that time?

Are you sure about that one?
 
2013-03-31 10:37:39 PM

rohar: Smackledorfer: rohar: I'm honestly agnostic.

Are you a theist or an atheist (you can't be neither)?

I'm completely fascinated with religion.  I attend any number of religious events/sermons.  I don't believe in any of them.  I'm not sure what that makes me.


Northeastern Catholic, I think.
 
2013-03-31 10:38:39 PM
And if any of you in the DC area are interested in my church, here's their facebook page so you can learn more about them:

https://www.facebook.com/stannesreston
 
2013-03-31 10:39:31 PM

skullkrusher: rohar: Smackledorfer: rohar: I'm honestly agnostic.

Are you a theist or an atheist (you can't be neither)?

I'm completely fascinated with religion.  I attend any number of religious events/sermons.  I don't believe in any of them.  I'm not sure what that makes me.

Northeastern Catholic, I think.


No wonder I'm having such problems!  I live in the Northwest.

We've got great salmon though, so there's that.
 
2013-03-31 10:41:54 PM

rohar: skullkrusher: rohar: Smackledorfer: rohar: I'm honestly agnostic.

Are you a theist or an atheist (you can't be neither)?

I'm completely fascinated with religion.  I attend any number of religious events/sermons.  I don't believe in any of them.  I'm not sure what that makes me.

Northeastern Catholic, I think.

No wonder I'm having such problems!  I live in the Northwest.

We've got great salmon though, so there's that.


Catholics prolly roll the same way out that way too. It's mostly the South where they get weird but they have to compete with the other weirdness to fit in there
 
2013-03-31 10:44:39 PM

skullkrusher: rohar: skullkrusher: rohar: Smackledorfer: rohar: I'm honestly agnostic.

Are you a theist or an atheist (you can't be neither)?

I'm completely fascinated with religion.  I attend any number of religious events/sermons.  I don't believe in any of them.  I'm not sure what that makes me.

Northeastern Catholic, I think.

No wonder I'm having such problems!  I live in the Northwest.

We've got great salmon though, so there's that.

Catholics prolly roll the same way out that way too. It's mostly the South where they get weird but they have to compete with the other weirdness to fit in there


This is where things come off the rails for me.  Look around the west.  Governers, federal representatives and senators.  Notice how many went to Calvinist "universities" in the south.

Mind numbing.
 
2013-03-31 10:45:46 PM

KWess: There is actually some things, but they won't be particularly reassuring for the 'I got mine' crowd.


How about this:

Leviticus 19:14 Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumbling-block before the blind, but shalt fear thy God: I am the LORD.

And this:

Matthew 10:8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons. You received without paying; give without pay.

And more broadly speaking:

Deuteronomy 15:7-11 If among you, one of your brothers should become poor, in any of your towns within your land that the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart or shut your hand against your poor brother, but you shall open your hand to him and lend him sufficient for his need, whatever it may be. Take care lest there be an unworthy thought in your heart and you say, 'The seventh year, the year of release is near,' and your eye look grudgingly on your poor brother, and you give him nothing, and he cry to the Lord against you, and you be guilty of sin. You shall give to him freely, and your heart shall not be grudging when you give to him, because for this the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake. For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, 'You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.'

Also, it seems to me that Jesus ran a series of free walk-in clinics:

Matthew 4:23-24 And he went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction among the people. So his fame spread throughout all Syria, and they brought him all the sick, those afflicted with various diseases and pains, those oppressed by demons, epileptics, and paralytics, and he healed them.


None of which has any relevance to Obamacare.  Jesus said help the poor - he never said man should be compelled to help someone else at the point of a sword.  There's a difference between taxation and charity but you wouldn't know...you're one of those "Fark you! I've got mine!" people.

Somacandra: CanisNoir: I'm more libertarian than conservative and feel that it should be left up to the states

An actual libertarian would be concerned with actual *individual" rights rather than some imagined arbitrary collectivism, don't you think?


No, an actual libertarian would believe that if a state or locality wanted to run a healthcare program, they should be free to do so...so you're wrong.
 
2013-03-31 10:46:45 PM
I don't recall reading anywhere that Jesus forced people to do things they didn't want to do...messes up that whole free will concept.

Obamacare was forced on the majority of the country that didn't want it. That's not the way of the Jesus.
 
2013-03-31 10:47:04 PM

rohar: skullkrusher: rohar: skullkrusher: rohar: Smackledorfer: rohar: I'm honestly agnostic.

Are you a theist or an atheist (you can't be neither)?

I'm completely fascinated with religion.  I attend any number of religious events/sermons.  I don't believe in any of them.  I'm not sure what that makes me.

Northeastern Catholic, I think.

No wonder I'm having such problems!  I live in the Northwest.

We've got great salmon though, so there's that.

Catholics prolly roll the same way out that way too. It's mostly the South where they get weird but they have to compete with the other weirdness to fit in there

This is where things come off the rails for me.  Look around the west.  Governers, federal representatives and senators.  Notice how many went to Calvinist "universities" in the south.

Mind numbing.


well my wife's family is Calvinist (Presbyterian) but they're about as secular as you can get aside from saying Grace before holiday meals. Pretty sure the only predestination they believe in is the type that gets you into country clubs
 
2013-03-31 10:48:25 PM

o5iiawah: There's a difference between taxation and charity but you wouldn't know


Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, give to God what is God's?
 
2013-03-31 10:48:50 PM
jewmanist.com
 
2013-03-31 10:49:22 PM

rohar: "I don't have any evidence of such a thing" is perfectly scientific.


Ok.

rohar: "I don't believe it exists because I've never seen it" is bullshiat.


I don't know how to respond to this exact phrase, and I would like to think you wouldn't play a word game with 'seen' after I respond.  So instead I will say the following:

I think it is perfectly logical to say "I do not believe X exists if there is insufficient* evidence that X exists".  There are only two states here:

1. I believe X exists.
2. I don't believe X exists.

Unless you have a very strange definition of the word "believe".

*I say insufficient because, frankly, a person I trust giving me an eye-witness account that the mail arrived is sufficient for me to believe there is mail in my mailbox (though I might be incorrect).  A person I trust giving me an eye-witness account that my dog set itself on fire and rose like a phoenix from the ashes would not be enough for me to believe it happened.

rohar: Would you believe (P or Q) = (Q or P)?


I never saw that on fark that I can remember, but given my understanding of how "or" works, yes the two are logically identical.

P or Q can be three things:
Only P
Only Q
Both P&Q
It makes no difference how you order them.  Is there a trick-question aspect I should be wasting my time trying to figure out before you gotcha! me and call me a moran?
 
2013-03-31 10:50:41 PM

o5iiawah: None of which has any relevance to Obamacare.  Jesus said help the poor - he never said man should be compelled to help someone else at the point of a sword.


Wait.  Are the FEMA-trained ObamaYouth brownshirts sporting guns or swords?  I have some Kevlar, but I don't think it does well against edged low-velocity weapons.
 
2013-03-31 10:51:21 PM

skilbride: How can you hate Christian's as a whole and judge them as a group


Get off the cross. When gays introduce legislation banning Christians from marrying, you'll have something to biatch about. Hear that clickity click? It's probably you typing that you don't have a problem with gays personally. Well, the institution you support sure as hell does.

You didn't ask for my advice but I'll offer it anyway. Instead of you whining to me about how we judge all Christians as hateful bigots, why don't you address your criticism to the Christians who are hateful bigots?

I'm fully aware that it's unfair for you to be held responsible for the entirety of Christianity. But it strikes me as kind of insensitive for you whine about people being nasty to you on Fark because you're a Christian when your fellow Christians are doing much MUCH worse to people in real life.

I am denied rights that other law abiding, tax paying American citizens enjoy as a matter of course. But ooh, someone was mean to you on Fark!
 
2013-03-31 10:51:42 PM

rohar: Smackledorfer: rohar: I'm honestly agnostic.

Are you a theist or an atheist (you can't be neither)?

I'm completely fascinated with religion.  I attend any number of religious events/sermons.  I don't believe in any of them.  I'm not sure what that makes me.


While I realize there are some people who insist on making up stupid ways of defining atheist so they can stick it to the 'militant' atheists, or whatever, I have never encountered someone who confused the "theism vs. atheism" question with "do I believe in a religion".   You can have a religion without believing there is a god.  Atheism and Theism speak to one's belief in a god, not their adherence or faith in a religion.
 
2013-03-31 10:51:57 PM
rohar:


For the life of me I don't know.  The entire premise is logically flawed.  Beyond that, if it's that irrelevant and impotent, why are we having this discussion at all?

Maybe because people insist that a)the biblical god does exist, and b) on that basis they should get to run my life according to what they decide their imaginary friend wants, often based on a millenia-old book of fairy tales.
 
2013-03-31 10:52:39 PM

o5iiawah: None of which has any relevance to Obamacare. Jesus said help the poor - he never said man should be compelled to help someone else at the point of a sword. There's a difference between taxation and charity but you wouldn't know...you're one of those "Fark you! I've got mine!" people.


"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's". I don't know any way of translating that other than, "pay your taxes", and in Jesus's day, Caesar used a good portion of these taxes to get the poor something to eat.

And Caesar did demand his taxes at the point of a sword.

o5iiawah: No, an actual libertarian would believe that if a state or locality wanted to run a healthcare program, they should be free to do so...so you're wrong.


No. A RON PAUL Libertarian would insist the State could do it, but not the Federal Government. A REAL Libertarian would insist that no governmental entity could do so.

...so you're wrong.
 
2013-03-31 10:53:28 PM

ox45tallboy: Green Scorpio: Jesus never suggested that the government should take from some, and give to others. All He ever said on the subject was to give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's. Rather He said God helps those who help themselves.

So.... you don't believe that Rome at the EXACT time Jesus said this was using tax money from the rich to provide food for the poor? And had been doing so for many years? And that this was definitely a very significant part (i.e., known to everyone, and a significant percentage of the budget) of the Roman government at that time?

Are you sure about that one?


I bet he'd get really upset if he learned about Roman taxation for infrastructure that even the poors were allowed to use.
 
2013-03-31 10:54:20 PM

shotglasss: I don't recall reading anywhere that Jesus forced people to do things they didn't want to do...messes up that whole free will concept.

Obamacare was forced on the majority of the country that didn't want it. That's not the way of the Jesus.


I seem to remember something about rendering unto Caesar.
 
2013-03-31 10:56:35 PM

shotglasss: I don't recall reading anywhere that Jesus forced people to do things they didn't want to do...messes up that whole free will concept.

Obamacare was forced on the majority of the country that didn't want it. That's not the way of the Jesus.


Who are you to know Jesus' will?  Is it not conceivable that, via direct intervention by the King of Kings, Obama conceived of and implemented Obamacare BECAUSE it helps poor people?
 
2013-03-31 10:56:42 PM

ox45tallboy: No. A RON PAUL Libertarian would insist the State could do it, but not the Federal Government. A REAL Libertarian would insist that no governmental entity could do so.

...so you're wrong.


well, strictly speaking a "REAL" libertarian has no problem with locally run health care as long as "membership" in the entity running the healthcare is completely optional.
Post-apocalypse, a few clans get together and think that they can provide healthcare for their members better if they join forces so they set up socialized healthcare. As long as you're a member of the clan collective, you must participate but you are free to leave the collective and the benefits that it provides. This is fully compatible with "real" libertarianism, right or left. Ironically, collectivism is cool under anarcho-capitalism.
 
2013-03-31 10:56:57 PM

UndeadPoetsSociety: Maybe because people insist that a)the biblical god does exist, and b) on that basis they should get to run my life according to what they decide their imaginary friend wants, often based on a millenia-old book of fairy tales.


This cannot be repeated enough.  I'm sure there are atheists out there who go busting into churches biatching at them for believing something on their own time and affecting nobody else, but I am not one of those.  I have an issue with religion when they try to change public policies that directly affect my life on the basis of the beliefs they hold which have insufficient evidence supporting them. That holds true whether it is a religious belief, a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory, or an Iraq war based on lies.

Asking for evidence before believing something and acting on it is a GOOD thing.
 
2013-03-31 10:57:19 PM

The Why Not Guy: skilbride: How can you hate Christian's as a whole and judge them as a group

Get off the cross. When gays introduce legislation banning Christians from marrying, you'll have something to biatch about. Hear that clickity click? It's probably you typing that you don't have a problem with gays personally. Well, the institution you support sure as hell does.

You didn't ask for my advice but I'll offer it anyway. Instead of you whining to me about how we judge all Christians as hateful bigots, why don't you address your criticism to the Christians who are hateful bigots?

I'm fully aware that it's unfair for you to be held responsible for the entirety of Christianity. But it strikes me as kind of insensitive for you whine about people being nasty to you on Fark because you're a Christian when your fellow Christians are doing much MUCH worse to people in real life.

I am denied rights that other law abiding, tax paying American citizens enjoy as a matter of course. But ooh, someone was mean to you on Fark!


I think she's went to bed, but she has been rather gracious so I'll point out a few things I believe you missed:

She has stated that the church she attends has gay members and performs gay marriage ceremonies. She has been quite firm about not just her own acceptances of homosexuals, but her church's as well. She's also stated that was one of the criteria that led her to choose that church to attend. Finally, she has been critical of other churches that are not accepting of gays.

I understand your outrage, but if you read everything she's said in this thread, you shouldn't direct this particular outrage at her.
 
2013-03-31 10:58:59 PM

Smackledorfer: I think it is perfectly logical to say "I do not believe X exists if there is insufficient* evidence that X exists". There are only two states here:

1. I believe X exists.
2. I don't believe X exists.


Your belief has no bearing to the existence of a thing.  Welcome to logic 101.

Smackledorfer: I never saw that on fark


Oh great shiat.  Google is your friend.  You'll find, with your search, that I cannot prove that your brain is made of cauliflower.
 
2013-03-31 11:01:29 PM

skilbride: Anyways, I must go to bed!  Thank you Fark, for the surprising honesty and discussion about faith.  It's weird for me because I don't talk about it outside of my church but this was a great night for the first time talking about it somewhat openly.  :) :) :)

(Who would've thought it would happen on fark!!!)

Goodnight all! :)


Most (not all) Farkers don't dislike people of faith just because they have the faith. That would be every bit as judgmental as we accuse so many Christians of being. It's when religious people start codifying their personal beliefs into law that encompasses all of us that we get pissed. Or when that faith is used to justify a bigotry. And definitely when that faith is used to scam people. While you'll find the occasional asshole at Fark who outright mocks you for believing in a "sky wizard," on the whole we're a live-and-let-live group...until your God gets forcibly inserted into our lives. Having read most of this thread you don't appear to be one of those people. 
 
I won't lie and tell you that I like religion. I honestly believe it is holding us back in areas like science, sex-ed, basic civil rights based on bedroom behavior, et al. But that doesn't mean I have to dislike Christians who aren't bothering me. All I ask is not to have laws, curriculum, etc shoved in my face, and in return, I offer the same courtesy.
 
2013-03-31 11:01:43 PM

Smackledorfer: I bet he'd get really upset if he learned about Roman taxation for infrastructure that even the poors were allowed to use.


You mean like that road to Jericho that the Good Samaritan was on? He and the others in the story) didn't have to pay no toll or nothin'? Or that prostitute at the well? She wasn't turnin' tricks just to get water?

What kind of a f*cked up system of government was Rome running? A system like that couldn't have lasted very long.
 
2013-03-31 11:02:29 PM

Smackledorfer: rohar: Smackledorfer: rohar: I'm honestly agnostic.

Are you a theist or an atheist (you can't be neither)?

I'm completely fascinated with religion.  I attend any number of religious events/sermons.  I don't believe in any of them.  I'm not sure what that makes me.

While I realize there are some people who insist on making up stupid ways of defining atheist so they can stick it to the 'militant' atheists, or whatever, I have never encountered someone who confused the "theism vs. atheism" question with "do I believe in a religion".   You can have a religion without believing there is a god.  Atheism and Theism speak to one's belief in a god, not their adherence or faith in a religion.


That's interesting.  I don't profess or adhere to any religion.  I attend any number of different religious congregations of peoples to try and understand those peoples.
 
Religiously practicing atheist?
 
Why must I define myself to enter the conversation?
 
2013-03-31 11:05:39 PM

shotglasss: I don't recall reading anywhere that Jesus forced people to do things they didn't want to do...messes up that whole free will concept.

 
Obamacare was forced on the majority of the country that didn't want it. That's not the way of the Jesus.
 
Because Obama didn't make HC reform a center plank of his campaign for president in 2008 and get elected by a majority of the citizenry based at least in part because of it?
 
Interesting theory.
 
2013-03-31 11:06:59 PM

shotglasss: I don't recall reading anywhere that Jesus forced people to do things they didn't want to do...messes up that whole free will concept.

Obamacare was forced on the majority of the country that didn't want it. That's not the way of the Jesus.


Except the alternative is to continue with bankruptcies or outright refusal of care. No one - not even the biggest Fark Liberal - is particularly thrilled with ACA. But the end result it will provide is a damn sight better than the status quo.
 
Obviously I don't pretend to speak for Jesus. But I think he would at least shrug it off as an improvement so the least of his people have a better shot at living. Then he'd probably lobby for pure single-payer. You ever see that man pissed off? I read that book. He's wasn't all smiles and puppy dogs.
 
2013-03-31 11:06:59 PM

shotglasss: I don't recall reading anywhere that Jesus forced people to do things they didn't want to do...messes up that whole free will concept.

Obamacare was forced on the majority of the country that didn't want it. That's not the way of the Jesus.

 
Except for the believe in me or go to hell part. Free will indeed.
 
Aside, healthcare reform was major plank of Obama's platform. It wasn't forced on anyone and didn't come out of the blue. America voted for it. Twice.
 
2013-03-31 11:08:55 PM

quatchi: shotglasss: I don't recall reading anywhere that Jesus forced people to do things they didn't want to do...messes up that whole free will concept.
 
Obamacare was forced on the majority of the country that didn't want it. That's not the way of the Jesus.
 
Because Obama didn't make HC reform a center plank of his campaign for president in 2008 and get elected by a majority of the citizenry based at least in part because of it?
 
Interesting theory.


For the record, I do believe that a majority of those that voted for him on the basis of his statements regarding health care wanted single payer, not Obamacare. It's a victory in that almost no one is totally happy with it.
 
2013-03-31 11:11:29 PM

rohar: Your belief has no bearing to the existence of a thing.  Welcome to logic 101.


 
Good point.  Can you show me where I said it did?
 
Also, guess where I can show you that I have, in this very thread and in the post to which you responded, show you where I know it does not.  
 

Smackledorfer: I think it is perfectly logical to say "I do not believe X exists if there is insufficient* evidence that X exists".  There are only two states here:

1. I believe X exists.
2. I don't believe X exists.

Unless you have a very strange definition of the word "believe".

*I say insufficient because, frankly, a person I trust giving me an eye-witness account that the mail arrived is sufficient for me to believe there is mail in my mailbox (though I might be incorrect).  A person I trust giving me an eye-witness account that my dog set itself on fire and rose like a phoenix from the ashes would not be enough for me to believe it happened.


 
Welcome to reading entire posts comprehensively.  Was it too long for you?
 

rohar: Oh great shiat.  Google is your friend.  You'll find, with your search, that I cannot prove that your brain is made of cauliflower.


Ahh, You don't have to read fewer than 100 characters in a post, barely longer than a freaking twitter, but I have to break out google to find the obscure rubbish that a poster not involved in the discussion rambled about in some other thread?  
 
Is it too much to ask that you hold yourself to a standard in the same ballpark as the one you require of others?
 

rohar: Why must I define myself to enter the conversation?


You don't have to, and I never said you did.  I asked a simple yes or no question.  
 
Does it bother you that I asked the question?
^also a simple yes or no question. 
/no you don't have to answer it in order to continue posting in this thread. It is a relatively free website and you don't need my permission, in case you were wondering.
 
2013-03-31 11:12:50 PM
 

Smackledorfer: UndeadPoetsSociety: Maybe because people insist that a)the biblical god does exist, and b) on that basis they should get to run my life according to what they decide their imaginary friend wants, often based on a millenia-old book of fairy tales.

This cannot be repeated enough.  I'm sure there are atheists out there who go busting into churches biatching at them for believing something on their own time and affecting nobody else, but I am not one of those.  I have an issue with religion when they try to change public policies that directly affect my life on the basis of the beliefs they hold which have insufficient evidence supporting them. That holds true whether it is a religious belief, a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory, or an Iraq war based on lies.

Asking for evidence before believing something and acting on it is a GOOD thing.

I agree almost completely; my only point of difference here is that if someone believes something stupid and contrary to the available evidence, and expresses that belief in my presence, I see no reason to refrain from pointing out that it's stupid and contrary to the evidence.
 
Displayed 50 of 522 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report