Passenger killed by air marshall

[NoZed Avenger]

Okay, and please point to the part of the article that says the government was involved in The Comedy Channels decision, I can't find it.

Arguably, any government could be labeled "Comedy Central."

Or perhaps, while not a government decision, the decision was still "permeated" by government.


ET Remove an 'l'

 

[Patricio Elicer]

In order for you to use the word religious you must qualify what religion it reffers to. Otherwise you are using a wrong word.

Einstein used to say he was a "non-believer profoundly religious", or something of that sort. One can perfectly have religious sentiments without adhering to any "established" or "organized" religion. At this point the definition of the word "religious" can become fuzzy indeed.

 

[Walter Wayne]

1
a.Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b.A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion

Martin Gardner has a religion. You can have a religion without it having a label, so why ask what his religion is.

 

[Upchurch]

It is not a strawman. It would be a strawman if I had claimed you had argued this. I didn't. What I did was ask you if that was what you meant.

Do you understand the difference between a strawman and a question - a request for clarification? Please explain it to me, so I know you understand the difference.

Yes, I appologize. I had forgotten that you aren't very apt at rhetorics and I took your question to be a rhetorical framing of my position. You'll have to forgive me for my assumption as your question was such a non-sequitor from anything that we had discussed to that point, I couldn't imagine that it was an honest question.

As such, No, that is not what I was saying.

That's the inherent problem with religious experiences. We can never know what other people felt.

This is such a tangent that I don't even know what you are talking about.

What I want to know, stated again, is: If "under God" and "in God we trust" is a religious reference, what are they referring to? "Something religious" is a circular argument and meaningless.

As you might remember, I, too, think it is a religious reference of political (specifically, anti-communist) origins. Note the historical context. What I think it is referring to is a knee-jerk acknowledgement that the US allows the existance of religions in our society and free choice among them for all our citizens.

You have told me that this is incorrect. You have told me that those phrases are not religious referances of political origins but of religious origin only. So, now, I ask again: religious reference to what?

 

[LeFevre]

I'd like to take a time out to thank UpFunky and NoZed. UpChurch for his calm reasoned method of discussing topics with others here, and NoZed for speaking up where others in the past might and probably did remain silent because they didn't want to get into it with one of the "Big Dawgs".

Politics and Religion makes strange allies. If most of the folks involved in this discussion were discussing something in another forum, say the Million Dollar Challenge forum, I wouldn't be surprised to see everyone in as much agreement as we can get here.

It is hard for me personally to see someone whom in other discussions, in other areas here, makes great points relying on facts and logic but somehow comes to a drastically different conclusion in regards to US politics. Seemingly not understanding why the DOI isn't a legal document but something like the Treaty of Tripoli has more legal weight from our founding legal document the US Constitution.

IMO emotion has clouded reality.

So cheers UpFunky and NoZed!

 

[CFLarsen]

A shift in language worthy of lucianarchy. Truly, this thread has been educational.

I'm explaining myself, and that is seen to be worthy of Lucianarchy?

You, my friend, have lost grip of reality.

No mention will be made of the failure to answer my Democracy questions -- again -- and fingers will be crossed in the hopes that no one has the tenacity to keep bringing up inconvenient points.

I have said what I wanted to say on that issue.

If I don't let go of a subject, I'm obsessive. If I do, I'm evading.

I just can't win with some people.

 

[CFLarsen]

Okay, and please point to the part of the article that says the government was involved in The Comedy Channels decision, I can't find it.

Did I say it was? It's an example of how religion permeates American society.

Sheesh, are people really that anxious to find errors with me? Take a chill pill, some of you...

 

[CFLarsen]

Einstein used to say he was a "non-believer profoundly religious", or something of that sort. One can perfectly have religious sentiments without adhering to any "established" or "organized" religion. At this point the definition of the word "religious" can become fuzzy indeed.

Quite so. I suspect that Einstein's take on religion was similar to Gardner's.

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes, I appologize. I had forgotten that you aren't very apt at rhetorics and I took your question to be a rhetorical framing of my position. You'll have to forgive me for my assumption as your question was such a non-sequitor from anything that we had discussed to that point, I couldn't imagine that it was an honest question.

Wow. I'm asking for clarification, you jump to the wrong conclusion, and I'm to blame?

I think you are letting your emotions cloud your judgment.

As such, No, that is not what I was saying.

Thank you for clarifying.

This is such a tangent that I don't even know what you are talking about.

I am explaining my point. You can call it what you want, but please have the decency to respect it.

What I want to know, stated again, is: If "under God" and "in God we trust" is a religious reference, what are they referring to? "Something religious" is a circular argument and meaningless.

Not at all. As Patricio pointed out, Einstein could refer to something religious without referring to a specific religion.

As you might remember, I, too, think it is a religious reference of political (specifically, anti-communist) origins. Note the historical context. What I think it is referring to is a knee-jerk acknowledgement that the US allows the existance of religions in our society and free choice among them for all our citizens.

Not just existence, but acceptance that it should be part of government.

You have told me that this is incorrect. You have told me that those phrases are not religious referances of political origins but of religious origin only. So, now, I ask again: religious reference to what?

There doesn't have to be a reference to a specific religion.

 

[CFLarsen]

It is hard for me personally to see someone whom in other discussions, in other areas here, makes great points relying on facts and logic but somehow comes to a drastically different conclusion in regards to US politics. Seemingly not understanding why the DOI isn't a legal document but something like the Treaty of Tripoli has more legal weight from our founding legal document the US Constitution.

It is hard for me personally to comprehend why people ignore that I have repeatedly said that I don't find the DoI a legal document.

Do you understand this now? It gets tiresome to repeat it, and it is disruptive to the discussion.

 

[CFLarsen]

Not really. Can you provide an example to support your assertion that one can be religious without a religion? Or is this another of your "I know better, don't question it" points?

I can tell you with absolute certainty what religion your queen is. It's mandated by your "secular" constitution, remember?

No answer, then.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Did I say it was? It's an example of how religion permeates American society.

Sheesh, are people really that anxious to find errors with me? Take a chill pill, some of you...

Not at all. However I find it difficult to beleive that you would have spent who-knows-how-many pages on this thread merely trying to make the point that there are a lot of religious people in the US and that they make their influence felt in a variety of ways. If that is your sole point, just say so, and I doubt you will get much argument on it, certainly none from me. However, if that is the case, I really do have to wonder why you have spent so much time arguing about such things as the role of religion in government, i.e. swearing on bibles.

 

[CFLarsen]

Martin Gardner has a religion. You can have a religion without it having a label, so why ask what his religion is.

You can be religious without having a religion. That's my point.

 

[Walter Wayne]

You can be religious without having a religion. That's my point.

Martin Gardner has a religion, read the definition again.

 

[CFLarsen]

Not at all. However I find it difficult to beleive that you would have spent who-knows-how-many pages on this thread merely trying to make the point that there are a lot of religious people in the US and that they make their influence felt in a variety of ways. If that is your sole point, just say so, and I doubt you will get much argument on it, certainly none from me. However, if that is the case, I really do have to wonder why you have spent so much time arguing about such things as the role of religion in government, i.e. swearing on bibles.

It's an example of how religion permeates US society. What can I say?

 

[CFLarsen]

Martin Gardner has a religion, read the definition again.

I did:

1
a.Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b.A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

Does Gardner believe that his god is the creator and governor of the Universe?

Aside: When do you write universe with capital U? I note that the dictionary doesn't.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

It's an example of how religion permeates US society. What can I say?

Again, if by "religion permeates US society" all you mean is "There are a lot of religious people in the US and as a result, religion has a lot of influence", I doubt you would find many people willing to argue against that premise. BUt if by "religion permeates US society", you mean "There are a lot of religious people in the US. Therefore Americans are, for the most part, superstitious dolts", you will find LOTS of people willing to argue aginst that premise, me included.

So, in short, which of those two interpretations of "religion permeates US society" is correct? Or is there some third interepretation?

 

[NoZed Avenger]

I'm explaining myself, and that is seen to be worthy of Lucianarchy?

You, my friend, have lost grip of reality.

Claus, I am not the first person to suggest that you've stared into the abyss too long.

You do not refute my analysis of your verbal gymnastics; the false dichotomy in the second example is especially glaring. But anything to keep churning replies and moving away from anything uncomfortable.

I have said what I wanted to say on that issue.

And by coincidence, *everything* you had to say happened just *before* my questions started (December 5th and then on December 12th).

Since then you haven't even deigned to state openly that you are refusing to answer them. you have ignored the thread and studiously ignored any mention of them until the present.

So for the record, will you state simply and clearly that you have no intention of answering my questions? Do you admit that you have no way to distinguish Switzerland from the US by voter participation in that thread?

If I don't let go of a subject, I'm obsessive. If I do, I'm evading.

A beautiful evasion. I think the primary criticism in this area is that you "don't let go" only when *you* are asking the questions. Any time the tables are turned, you suddenly "have said what [you] wanted to say on that issue."

You don't accept that type of non-response from other people. Indeed, you trumpet the fact that you never give up and wear the accusations of stalker like some badge of honor.

I am not satisfied with leaving things dangling in the air, I don't go for a tentative approach. I seek answers, actively, and yes, sometimes aggressively. I am possibly a wee bit more...shall we say "determined" than most other regulars here, but that's just me. (CFLarsen 5/31/04)

I most certainly hope that the new forum will not allow me or anyone else to post claims without providing evidence. That's what I have been arguing in favor of for some time now. (CFLarsen 5/31/04)

How do you suggest that we find answers? Or do you think that we should let everything blow in the wind? Is it OK for people to walk away from their claims, and even repeat them later, as if no objections or counterarguments had been made? (CFLarsen 5/31/04)

So it is a false dichotomy yet again, Claus -- you could be quite obsessive on some topics and yet very evasive on others.


How about something more recent?

When am I to understand that they have indicated that they are not interested in answering my questions? When they deflect the questions? When they demonstrably evade the questions?

Should we accept this kind of behavior? We don't accept this from Sylvia Browne: Oh, no, we all agree that her desperate attempts of avoiding the JREF Challenge is desssssssssspicable. Yet, we accept this from people if they make their claims here.

It is inconsequential. Even hypocritical.

- CFLarsen (12/28/05)

http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=27538&highlight=#27538

or

If there is no answer, the question should be repeated.
* * *

What the point is? To get some answers. That's what I am here for. That's what I am at JREF for. That's why I'm a skeptic.

I want some answers.

You want answers, but don't give them. To repeat one of your questions, "Should we accept this kind of behavior?"

I just can't win with some people.

Not with your current tactics. And I suggest that your efforts -- and need -- to "win" are part of the problem.

 

[CFLarsen]

Again, if by "religion permeates US society" all you mean is "There are a lot of religious people in the US and as a result, religion has a lot of influence", I doubt you would find many people willing to argue against that premise.

Oh, I dunno.... Take a look a this thread...

BUt if by "religion permeates US society", you mean "There are a lot of religious people in the US. Therefore Americans are, for the most part, superstitious dolts", you will find LOTS of people willing to argue aginst that premise, me included.

So, in short, which of those two interpretations of "religion permeates US society" is correct? Or is there some third interepretation?

Yes.

There are a lot of religious and superstitious people in the US. Therefore, Americans are, for the most part, superstitious.

Think you'll agree with me now?

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Oh, I dunno.... Take a look a this thread...

Be careful what you wish for.