God is necessary for morality to survive | Polichickster v Dante

[Wry Catcher]

The following is a statement of faith based on "as an agnostic I see no probative evidence that God exists or does not exist."

It is a statement based on the lack of evidence, not on faith. It is not a conclusion, in fact it implies a question.

And I have a question. Which University awarded you a degree in Sophistry?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The following is a statement of faith based on "as an agnostic I see no probative evidence that God exists or does not exist."

It is a statement based on the lack of evidence, not on faith. It is not a conclusion, in fact it implies a question. And I have a question. Which University awarded you a degree in Sophistry?

Wry Catcher, what is, is, my friend. You have a belief based on faith that evidence cannot prove or disprove that God exists. Such is the basis of religion. Get over it, and accept it.

 

[Foxfyre]

The following is a statement of faith based on "as an agnostic I see no probative evidence that God exists or does not exist."

It is a statement based on the lack of evidence, not on faith. It is not a conclusion, in fact it implies a question.

And I have a question. Which University awarded you a degree in Sophistry?

Or have you just failed to recognize the evidence that has been presented to you? Like one of those times when I will say I have seen no evidence of something, and I'll be referred to a document I had already scanned over, and yep, there it would be. I just missed it before.

When you have such a plethora of witnesses who claim a relationship with God, it does require some degree of faith to reject all that testimony based on your own experience alone.

And then we come back to concepts of right and wrong which, after all, is what morality is. And what is the basis of what we determine is right and wrong? It would be an interesting debate.

But I do hope the Bullring does not become a vehicle to goad or heckle people who may not wish to play and use that as an excuse to verbally abuse them.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Lord is not sulking, dear, you are.

She's talking about you sulking, not the lord.

She, like my mother in law (bless her passing and soul), believes she speaks for the Lord.

Not true.

A lame attempted straw-man on your part.


Now, if you have the....guts....take on my actual beliefs, from post #57.


If not....no prob; it won't change my opinion of you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC going to help someone with their homework?

Evidently, the PoliChicster is more chicken than political

just sayin'

Political Chicen?

Speaking of chicken....did any see the Liberal who planned to kill as many conservatives as he could....and then wipe the faces of the dying religious folks with Chik-fil-a sandwiches?



"Washington (CNN) -- After years of thinking it over, Floyd Corkins finally had a plan.
He'd bought a gun and learned how to use it. He'd loaded three magazines. And he had stopped by Chick-fil-A to pick up 15 sandwiches, which he planned to smear in the dying faces of staffers he expected to kill at the Family Research Council in Washington.

...Corkins pleaded guilty on Wednesday to three charges related to the August shooting at the conservative policy group.

Corkins told Judge Richard Roberts that he hoped to intimidate gay rights opponents.

The research council, a Christian group that focuses on family, anti-abortion and religious liberty issues and views homosexuality as harmful, backed Chick-fil-A in the ensuing controversy.

"They endorse Chick-fil-A and also Chick-fil-A came out against gay marriage, so I was going to use that as a statement," prosecutors quoted Corkins as telling investigators.

...Corkins wanted to kill building manager Leo Johnson and other Family Research Council employees "with the intent to intimidate and coerce a significant portion of the civilian population of the District of Columbia and the United States."
DC shooter wanted to kill as many as possible, prosecutors say - CNN.com



Most illustrative is that he was set on his viscous path by the Liberal Think Tank:

"Corkins -- who had chosen the research council as his target after finding it listed as an anti-gay group on the website of the Southern Poverty Law Center --"



Violence remains a mainstay of Leftist endeavor.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Violence remains a mainstay of Leftist endeavor.

Children do tend to act out emotionally.

 

[JakeStarkey]

She's talking about you sulking, not the lord.

She, like my mother in law (bless her passing and soul), believes she speaks for the Lord.

Not true.

A lame attempted straw-man on your part.


Now, if you have the....guts....take on my actual beliefs, from post #57.


If not....no prob; it won't change my opinion of you.

Ah, Political Chiken, you are groovy.

 

[PoliticalChic]

She, like my mother in law (bless her passing and soul), believes she speaks for the Lord.

Not true.

A lame attempted straw-man on your part.


Now, if you have the....guts....take on my actual beliefs, from post #57.


If not....no prob; it won't change my opinion of you.

Ah, Political Chiken, you are groovy.

And cooler than the other side of the pillow!

 

[Wry Catcher]

The following is a statement of faith based on "as an agnostic I see no probative evidence that God exists or does not exist."

It is a statement based on the lack of evidence, not on faith. It is not a conclusion, in fact it implies a question. And I have a question. Which University awarded you a degree in Sophistry?

Wry Catcher, what is, is, my friend. You have a belief based on faith that evidence cannot prove or disprove that God exists. Such is the basis of religion. Get over it, and accept it.

You've inferred I have faith in God and no God. Sitting here in my home, safe with my family I can say with certainty I don't know if God exists or if God does not and is only a construct the human mind. That holding is not faith, as I understand the word.

Tomorrow I might get on a plane and as we leave the airport and head out over SF Bay a bolt of lightening might strike the wing and as I watch, it falls off and the plane starts a long slow spin down. At that moment I might pray, or I might kick back, close my eyes and enjoy the ride, pretending I was on the Big Dipper at Santa Cruz.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It is a statement based on the lack of evidence, not on faith. It is not a conclusion, in fact it implies a question. And I have a question. Which University awarded you a degree in Sophistry?

Wry Catcher, what is, is, my friend. You have a belief based on faith that evidence cannot prove or disprove that God exists. Such is the basis of religion. Get over it, and accept it.

You've inferred I have faith in God and no God. Sitting here in my home, safe with my family I can say with certainty I don't know if God exists or if God does not and is only a construct the human mind. That holding is not faith, as I understand the word.

Tomorrow I might get on a plane and as we leave the airport and head out over SF Bay a bolt of lightening might strike the wing and as I watch, it falls off and the plane starts a long slow spin down. At that moment I might pray, or I might kick back, close my eyes and enjoy the ride, pretending I was on the Big Dipper at Santa Cruz.

Wherever you are, be safe.

 

[JohnA]

Neither believer nor un- can prove or disprove God exists or does not exist.

The understanding of ethics and morality exist independently of God.

And . . . both the atheist and the true believer have faith in their belief systems, thus both are religious.

The religious and unreligious true believers are a pain in the ass in a balanced, moral universe.

Once again you prove to be the leader of the "never informed, yet never in doubt" brigade.

Your statement is shown to be glaringly false when one considers the French and American revolutions.


1. The French Revolution is based on eradication of religion from the public arena, and replacing it with reason and science.
The result? A great nation turned into an abattoir.

a. While sharing many similarities, there was one glaring difference. The French were not Christian and attempted to introduce a godless humanistic government. The result is amply recorded in history books. Instead of the liberty, justice, peace, happiness, and prosperity experienced in America, France suffered chaos and injustice as thousands of heads rolled under the sharp blade of the guillotine.” Religion and Government in America: Are they*complementary? ? The Mandate


b. 'If the French revolution was the end of monarchy and aristocratic privilege and the emergence of the common man and democratic rights, it was also the beginnings of modern totalitarian government and large-scale executions of "enemies of the People" by impersonal government entities (Robespierre's "Committee of Public Safety"). This legacy would not reach its fullest bloom until the tragic arrival of the German Nazis and Soviet and Chinese communists of the 20th century.'
French Revolution - Robespierre, and the Legacy of the Reign of Terror



2. The American Revolution was grounded in Judeo-Christian traditions, and produced a nation based on religion.

a. "In a sense, the Jewish people have been re-born here, in the United States. The Founders rooted the new nation in the Bible. The Puritans, in fact, saw their endeavor as a re-enactment of Exodus. England was Egypt and America, the New Israel. The most quoted source was the Bible. Established in the original writings of our Founding Fathers we find that they discovered in Isaiah 33:22 the three branches of government: Isaiah 33:22 “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.” Here we see the judicial, the legislative and the executive branches. In Ezra 7:24 we see where they established the tax exempt status of the church: Ezra 7:24 “Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them."
Roger Anghis -- Bring America Back To Her Religious Roots, Part 7

So the foundling fathers grounded the new nation on fables whats your point ???

 

[JakeStarkey]

Neither believer nor un- can prove or disprove God exists or does not exist.

The understanding of ethics and morality exist independently of God.

And . . . both the atheist and the true believer have faith in their belief systems, thus both are religious.

The religious and unreligious true believers are a pain in the ass in a balanced, moral universe.

Once again you prove to be the leader of the "never informed, yet never in doubt" brigade.

Your statement is shown to be glaringly false when one considers the French and American revolutions.

1. The French Revolution is based on eradication of religion from the public arena, and replacing it with reason and science.
The result? A great nation turned into an abattoir.

a. While sharing many similarities, there was one glaring difference. The French were not Christian and attempted to introduce a godless humanistic government. The result is amply recorded in history books. Instead of the liberty, justice, peace, happiness, and prosperity experienced in America, France suffered chaos and injustice as thousands of heads rolled under the sharp blade of the guillotine.” Religion and Government in America: Are they*complementary? ? The Mandate


b. 'If the French revolution was the end of monarchy and aristocratic privilege and the emergence of the common man and democratic rights, it was also the beginnings of modern totalitarian government and large-scale executions of "enemies of the People" by impersonal government entities (Robespierre's "Committee of Public Safety"). This legacy would not reach its fullest bloom until the tragic arrival of the German Nazis and Soviet and Chinese communists of the 20th century.'
French Revolution - Robespierre, and the Legacy of the Reign of Terror



2. The American Revolution was grounded in Judeo-Christian traditions, and produced a nation based on religion.

a. "In a sense, the Jewish people have been re-born here, in the United States. The Founders rooted the new nation in the Bible. The Puritans, in fact, saw their endeavor as a re-enactment of Exodus. England was Egypt and America, the New Israel. The most quoted source was the Bible. Established in the original writings of our Founding Fathers we find that they discovered in Isaiah 33:22 the three branches of government: Isaiah 33:22 “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.” Here we see the judicial, the legislative and the executive branches. In Ezra 7:24 we see where they established the tax exempt status of the church: Ezra 7:24 “Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them."
Roger Anghis -- Bring America Back To Her Religious Roots, Part 7

So the foundling fathers grounded the new nation on fables whats your point ???

Political Chiken cluks and scratches on the ground is all, making assumptions not based on facts.

She is a mises-type clone is all, describing an alternate world.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Once again you prove to be the leader of the "never informed, yet never in doubt" brigade.

Your statement is shown to be glaringly false when one considers the French and American revolutions.

1. The French Revolution is based on eradication of religion from the public arena, and replacing it with reason and science.
The result? A great nation turned into an abattoir.

a. While sharing many similarities, there was one glaring difference. The French were not Christian and attempted to introduce a godless humanistic government. The result is amply recorded in history books. Instead of the liberty, justice, peace, happiness, and prosperity experienced in America, France suffered chaos and injustice as thousands of heads rolled under the sharp blade of the guillotine.” Religion and Government in America: Are they*complementary? ? The Mandate


b. 'If the French revolution was the end of monarchy and aristocratic privilege and the emergence of the common man and democratic rights, it was also the beginnings of modern totalitarian government and large-scale executions of "enemies of the People" by impersonal government entities (Robespierre's "Committee of Public Safety"). This legacy would not reach its fullest bloom until the tragic arrival of the German Nazis and Soviet and Chinese communists of the 20th century.'
French Revolution - Robespierre, and the Legacy of the Reign of Terror



2. The American Revolution was grounded in Judeo-Christian traditions, and produced a nation based on religion.

a. "In a sense, the Jewish people have been re-born here, in the United States. The Founders rooted the new nation in the Bible. The Puritans, in fact, saw their endeavor as a re-enactment of Exodus. England was Egypt and America, the New Israel. The most quoted source was the Bible. Established in the original writings of our Founding Fathers we find that they discovered in Isaiah 33:22 the three branches of government: Isaiah 33:22 “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.” Here we see the judicial, the legislative and the executive branches. In Ezra 7:24 we see where they established the tax exempt status of the church: Ezra 7:24 “Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them."
Roger Anghis -- Bring America Back To Her Religious Roots, Part 7

So the foundling fathers grounded the new nation on fables whats your point ???

Political Chiken cluks and scratches on the ground is all, making assumptions not based on facts.

She is a mises-type clone is all, describing an alternate world.

You came to the right place for shrugs.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So the foundling fathers grounded the new nation on fables whats your point ???

Political Chiken cluks and scratches on the ground is all, making assumptions not based on facts.

She is a mises-type clone is all, describing an alternate world.

You came to the right place for shrugs.

 

[koshergrl]

There have been times I have disagreed with PC's conclusions on something, but I have never found her arguments to be anything but rational and defensible. In truth, she takes on complicated subjects--way too complicated for most of her strongest critics--and she sometimes gets bored after the critics have floundered for pages and attacked her while never addressing the thread topic. . . .

But I have never seen PC bested by anybody in a debate. And that includes myself.

And I think a rule should be added to the Bullring that if a challenge is offered, the one who for whatever reason chooses not to accept doesn't have to be subjected to a flame thread, called a coward, and worse.

I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

[emilynghiem]

Polichictster has only to agree and we take this into the Bull Ring

She is a formidable poster. But does she lack courage and honor? We shall see.

.

Hi Dante: If you have no takers, I'll take you up on the premise that
"agreement" on what is meant by God is necessary for the future of
human relations and society to be effective and sustainable, and the
pre-lemma to that proof is agreeing that forgiveness is necessary
in order to reach agreement across political and religious lines.

 

[emilynghiem]

God is a construct of humanity. Any evidence to the contrary will be considered. Please post such below:

1.

Hi Wry Catcher and Dante: I have an idea.
I am willing to be on a defense team with PC
if you two will be on the skeptic team.

Can we work out as much as possible here, with other people
chiming or chipping in to help us focus.
And then when we know which points we are really
stuck on, then we can take that into the BR and have
2 on 2? Can we try that?

here is my response to WC:

REGARDLESS if you see God as reflected in man
or you see man as making up representations of God
I want to show how there ARE universal patterns in
the representations of God, so these reflect the
same thing (no matter which one is creating
or reflecting the other, whether God or man is the source)

The root patterns of human nature
are body/mind/spirit and these
three levels: individual, collective,
and relationship between individual and collective
are reflected in ALL systems of laws, religion,
philosophy etc. that attempt to represent human relations.

Below are some examples that show this repeat pattern:
==========
If God is three: collective level of "heavenly Father",
the earthly level of the "Holy Spirit" or healing grace uniting humanity in peace,
and the level joining these two as the "Son of God or Jesus"
as the Laws of Justice or Authority EMBODIED by conscience

then you can see how all systems "made by man"
reflect this same pattern, from top to bottom or bottom to top

TAOISM: spirit/mind/body

PSYCHOLOGY: superego/ego/id

BUDDHISM: Buddha/Dharma/Sangha

CONFUCIAN: Jen/Yi/Li
(Supreme Virtue or Highest Good = JEN
Highest Principle Embodied in Man = YI
Outward expression of highest moral standards = LI)

CONSTITUTIONALISM: Judicial/Legislative/Executive

etc.

Basically, man or human nature is body/mind/spirit
the INDIVIDUAL human level of empirical experience
the COLLECTIVE level of all society and all humanity combined
and the JOINING level of relations with others by CONSCIENCE

So collectively these 3 levels
are also symbolized by
God the heavenly father (love of universal truth on a collective spiritual level)
Jesus the Son of God (love of equal justice, level of laws or conscience joining
individual man with collective humanity spirituality or global society)
Holy Spirit (love of humanity, in our relationships that collectively
become all of society and all humanity united as one family in harmony)

So REGARDLESS if you are theistic or nontheistic/secular,
you are free to say that MAN made up all these systems
from Constitutional Laws to Christianity to Buddhism.

But you can STILL see the similarities that the same themes
are EMBEDDED in each of these systems, so that human nature is
universal and just expressed in diverse ways
that still follow the same 3-part patterns.

All these systems of laws were culturally different,
some completely developed independently of each other,
while Constitutional structures were influenced by Christian
followers and principles, but Buddhism came 600 years before
and was independent physically. I am saying spiritually it is
still connected and it shows in the patterns of structure.

So that is how I understand that all these systems were
inspired by the same source that they attempt to describe,
whether you call that "human nature" or God as the creator of nature.

Even the Unitarian Universalists who rejected the Trinity
have this in their principles:
1. free and responsible search for TRUTH and meaning
2. respect for CONSCIENCE and the democratic process
3. goal of world COMMUNITY and interconnected relations

Love of Universal Truth
Love of Justice or equal protection under law
Love of Humanity and World Peace in human relations

The same three levels expressed in different aspects or focuses.

God as love, truth or Wisdom as in Buddhism.
God as life or creation or the universe in secular terms.

The expressions can differ from an impersonal view of
the creation as the universe to a personified view of God as a Creator.

But these are either coming from the same source
or trying to describe the same 3 levels of human nature and experience in life.
=======================

Wrycatcher are you okay using this as a premise
that it is POSSIBLE for people to AGREE that
whether man made God or God made man
that our SYSTEMS can be aligned to
agree on common principles so we can
make peace and work together as one
society as one human family independent of our religious backgrounds?

Also, where people CANNOT agree these align
can we agree to debate if the factor of FORGIVENESS
is the key and not one religion being more right
than others, but whether people of different
religious or political views agree to FORGIVE each other's
alliances or differences and AGREE to work together
on points or principles of agreement?

So it's forgiveness that is the factor
and this would allow anyone of any
group to work with anyone else
as long as they can forgive their
issues, differences or conflicts.

 

[emilynghiem]

PoliticalChic PoliticalChic is online now
Fighting Thugs and Libs

Last Activity: Today 08:02 AM
Current Activity: Viewing Thread God is necessary for morality to survive | Polichickster v Dante

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

Some people are sensitive about God, maybe if you choose a different topic she would accept the debate challenge.

Dear Dante and Drifter:
I think we could reword the issue being debated and the context
where we could engage in meaningful exchange.
See my previous message to WryCatcher.

If we can't reach an agreement as to the connection
between God/nature ie the thing BEING represented
and the multiple representations in man's systems
used to reflect nature/God/whatever universal laws.

Could we focus on the factor that either allows
or doesn't allow people to reconcile
as being "forgiveness/unforgiveness"

And then it could lead to a debate if thiso
level of forgiveness for all humanity
is what Jesus/God's grace is about.
Some Christians may say no, you have to
call it by the name JESUS or it's not the same thing.
Other Christians have already decided that God/Jesus
is manifesting and governing all things whether you
call it by those names or not, it is one and the same.

If PC is willing to explore some other framework
for setting up the debate about God or Jesus
being essential and central to humanity's survival,
I am willing to help interpret or reword it so it
can be debated or possibly resolved with others
coming from a nontheistic or liberal viewpoint.

There are ways to work around the language
so we make the same or related points without
getting caught up in differences in how we
see and say things, the concepts can still be parallel.

Can you read the longer msg to WC and
tell me what you think?

I will see if PC responds with any further
comments or suggestions how to approach this!

Thank you,
Emily

 

[Dante]

........................................................

 

[yidnar]

yes god is necessary for morality to survive.