Figleaf

Belief is a choice. A belief based on reason is not. It is a conclusion, not a choice. A person cannot reasonably believe things that are controverted by reason. I cannot reasonably choose to believe that two sticks added to two sticks will leave me with 23 sticks.

What then is the bible, in your rubric, and how does this make it amenable to being misrepresented as you did?

So, which thing did Aminijihad actually say? Destruction of Israel, or destruction of the regime in Israel?

So what % of BC is 'realistic'? That's true, but legally, the federal government is also responsible for ensuring first nation's welfare, and by allowing this kind of corruption to go unchecked for decades at least, it has failed that trust.

So, after this sad recitation and bizarre rant, what is your prescription?

Yes, he should have said their deaths were wasted. Or their futures.

There is nothing in these excerpts that shows criticism of Israel to be driven by anti-semitism. The suggestion seems quite slanderous, really.

And false. Spreading democracy was the last reason tendered, practically post-facto. They first falsely attempted to paint Iraq as a conspirator in 9/11, then fabricated the weapons-of-mass-deception gambit. This BH fellow is either sloppy, ignorant, or revisionist. (Edit: Or, of course, some combination of all three, bearing in mind the slight responsibility academics display for sense or wisdom of their statements.)

Yeah, it almost beats 'white man self-justification'.

B.H.Levy, eh? Does B.H. stand for blow-hard?

You are accussing 'most theists' of having a mere faith of convenience. A rational person CANNOT choose to believe in a deity. To believe something, a rational person requires being convinced, not simply suspending disbelief. They can choose to profess belief, but it would be false (as in the above situation).

Do you accuse everyone who questions your biblical citations of 'mocking God'? It seems to me that someone who knowingly misrepresents the Word of God by saying that a passage from the Bible says something it does not say is the one who really mocks God. It seems to me that someone who purports to know the mind of God and puts his own common sense on a par with it is the one who really mocks God. That is, as it were, my business, to represent and speak on behalf of the Church:-) And I am well versed in the Scriptures, which clearly you are not. 1. You being in the business of 'representing "the" Church' doesn't change one whit that you misrepresented the passages of Genesis. You claimed that god made marriage when he made Adam and Eve, and yet the passages you cited in support (Gen. 1:27-28, and Gen. 2:18, 21-22) say no such thing at all. You made up a fake representation of the Word of God. 2. Your resort to denigrating my knowledge (when you can obviously know virtually nothing about that fact) does not improve your persuasiveness.

I think it would be sufficient if you would stuff your continuous trolling and abuse into your least comfortable orifice.

WTF is up with this? These scumbags planted false evidence in the dead woman's home. Do you think they did that because they believed they had a 'righteous shoot' situation? Hooey. They covered up because they believed they had done wrong.

True, if you have a gun at home, chances are the cops will get a bogus drug warrant, and lie about cameras outside your home in order to bash in your door without identifying themselves. (Or fail to notice there are no cameras and wonder if they have the right place). And chances are that they'll gun you down in a hail of bullets so reckless that they injure some of their own. And if you have a gun in your house, the chances are that after pumping you full of lead, they'll handcuff you and leave you dying on the floor of your shattered home (even though they must surely have noticed you are very elderly). Yeah, that was entirely predictable for the poor woman. Interestingly, the victim was the only one who acted legally throughout this disgusting example.

If you want a forum without anti-semites, try ... http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums.

It's disgusting, contemptuous behaviour. Shows no respect for the Military, their families or the Government. There are a number of ways to state your opinion without resorting to the vulgar and the disgusting. ... Oh hey, look. I wasn't far off -- his ludicrous position is to suggest that saying the government is pissing on the troops is disrespectful to the troops! Can you believe that? He can't tell the difference between the troops and the government (or worse, he prefers the interests of Steve's government to the troops). Advisory for Bluth ... it is contemptuous for the government to piss on the troops. Calling that for what it is isn't contemptuous of the troops at all.

I can guess which person is going to cry the most about it. The amount of whining and snivelling is dramatic but quite unbelievable. I'm almost (almost) tempted to take a look to see what the particulars of his whinge are. But I remember that it will be a worthless piece of partisan ass-covering and don't bother. He seems to think that criticizing Steve and the gang is anti-Canadian or something. (The reality, of course is that driving Steve's gang from office is the best possible thing for Canada.) As far as pissing on the troops goes, we can be sure Steve and the gang could be shooting the troops and Bluth would still work for a way to excuse them.

Would you feel different if Uzi bullets killed your child?

You are 100% certain the sky is blue because the english word 'blue' has been defined to include wavelengths of light reflected by air. And guess what ... I'm certain that atheism is the opposite of theism on a similar basis.

Non-theists certainly are often sloppy. But sloppiness is not the main problem afflicting theists, rather, theists suffer from an inherent rejection of reason from the get go (at least in regard to matters that are subject to doctrinal interpretations). Most theists when, examined closely, reject reason in favor of their doctrines. This produces thinking which prevent them from, for example, discussing something like same sex marriage in the terms of public policy. You are inappropriately inserting the criteria of repeatable experiments. Reason is not infirm in the face of difficult analyses ... you can certainly base reasoned choices on the best available data, even if it is incomplete.

Electrons and positrons are opposites in terms of electric charge but the are still atomic particles. Theism and atheism are opposites when it comes to a deity but they are both religions. It really insulting when you reiterate arguments that have already been answered as if I had not written at all. (See post #272.) Is it a deliberate tactic, in hopes that we have all forgotten your ass got beat on that point already? What you want to call religion is actually theism. That is why the word for people who believe that god does not exist is 'a'-theist and not 'a'-religion. Were you not arguing a few moments ago that theism and atheism are essentially the same? No, I see 'religion' as a term with an meaning that includes some things and excludes others. It doesn't matter WHO you try to apply it to, we are discussing WHAT you are trying to apply it to. The difference would be that theistic justifications are based on religious dictat and atheistic justifications are not. In theistic thinking the doctrines can overrule reasoned, useful justifications at any moment. This is also true of extremist thought-control philosophies like fascism whether or not they are religious. But basic skeptical atheism doesn't have that. Why are these differences significant? No, you still owe me a whole stack of answers first. And add this one: Why would you dispute their significance when the people who hold them obviously feel strongly about them? No, I can't accept that because it's folly. Athiests DON'T develop their moral code 'based on' that premise. An atheist can assemble their moral code and never once make reference to the status of their belief in God(s). Whether God exists or not is not the basis on which an atheist concludes that murder is most usually wrong. They simply do not think "Hm. Is murder wrong? Well first, God does not exist, so ..." That doesn't ring true. Why the ongoing conflict over laws and policies between theists and secular people?

Naturally. Who wouldn't choose to live on the streets rather that be comfortable and employed? What, you wouldn't make that choice? Well then, I wonder why she did ... must be inferior genetics in your book, I suppose.

Sorry, when I trimmed the quote, I left out all the other cases we mentioned other than disabled parents. Personally, I don't see why the parent needs to be disabled -- presumably the spouses don't. As to whether the meritorious non-spouse cases are 'rare', I suspect we don't know that for sure either. Likewise, and belated welcome to the forum.

What facile junk. You are not being asked to pay for it. The state you are in is responsible for it. If you feel hard done by when the state taxes you to pay for its mistakes it's really too bad, but that doesn't absolve the state of its responsibilities. Your suggestion is fundamentally unfair. The entitlements of native people are the result of agreements that created obligations. Your proposal to unilaterally terminate such obligation is no different, ethically speaking, than an insurance company that refuses to honor its policies, for example.