vortexring

There isn't enough information to answer. Quite honestly, the idea of a violent death one way and paradise the other sounds like bullshit anyway. So I'd abstain from taking either fork until more information was gathered. Maybe where I am is perfectly OK. I figured you'd make a point of not making a decision. The original point remains though...you've still to answer that. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

God didn't write the bible - man did. That's apparantly important! And God also gave us was free will. Accepting the debt for bad, again, you've a solid point - I'm only asking the good to be considered into your argument. Despite what's now obviously the wrong applications of christianity, it doesn't make it a useless tool. Isn't it obvious work is necessary, instead of an onslaught of destructive and pretty useless critiscism? Concerning your final points, they're good points, and of course I realise you don't have the answer, as neither do I. I have my opinion on what I believe a possible answer may be, so there is achievement in itself by at least recognising the need for answers. Your example of National service is something I especially agree with.

Ah, so when religious texts are used to justify being nasty to people that isn't religion's fault, just bad people. However when religious texts are used to encourage being good to each other it isn't because of good people, but the religious texts. How... convenient Did I factually say that statement? That's only your interpretation. Poor point. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

No, you have made such statements! You absolutely have stated that societies need religion to be stable and good, therefore you have stated that no society can be good or stable without religion. You state it in this very same fucking post! "My opinion is that society needs a unifying common moral guidance that I feel only religion, properly applied, can provide." In an earlier post we have this "Furthermore, its (religion) indispensability to social order has repeatedly been demonstrated by its direct effect on laws and morality.". We also have this "People require moral guidance." (NB 'people', not just societies) and this "...through moral guidance. And I believe only religion can provide this." So yes you have stated, categorically, that you feel that societies cannot be good or stable without religion. Seriously, if you can't even understand your own fucking argument how the hell do you expect to understand any counter argument I make against you? That's not what we're talking about right now. Whether you believe in god or not has absolutely nothing to do with the subject currently under discussion. Your level of comprehension here is getting lower and lower by the minute. Relax Jakee - you're becoming like a fart in a bottle again - and you've missed my point again. My issue was that you'd provided a statement I'd said. It was indeed similiar to my opinion but it wasn't in fact an actual statement I'd made. Big difference Sonny Jim. Now, regarding your last statement, that, again, is your opinion. In my opinion we've gone beyond the nitpicking of how I've portrayed my opinions. The context of my portrayal is only an issue for you through reasons I've already mentioned, and reasons you continue to confirm. I've asked you numerous questions and requests, which you continue to ignore, whilst i'm continually answering all your points as honestly as I can... Have a look at the assertions I've made about you; your setting the concrete. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Margaret, my apologies. (It's a Merlot Rose that's at fault this time.) 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Now it all depends on the situation. If no one had ever come back from either fork in the road, and even if 100% of the people (who could have no knowledge of what lies down that road) said go left, it would be a logical falacy to think that left was any more certain to be the safe route than right. Since no one had ever returned, both routes could be equally hazardous. If on the other hand, all those people had seen that people who turn left, come home safe and sound but those that turn right don't, then it would be more logical to turn left. The logical fallacy is assuming that what is popular is correct simply because it's popular. Popularity is not enough, you need actual evidence to back it up. You need to know that all those people had been down the road and come back safe and sound. It constantly amazes me that people don't get this intuitively, let alone need it explaining to them. Surely you see it now? I sure do, but what would your decision be going only with the information I've provided? There is only one sensible decision. Ask your questions on the way there! 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

It's not a load of crap - I hear your points. First of all, your initial critical points of the bible reflect some thoughts I also share; but you fail to include the general goodness that's also mentioned throughout the scriptures. Your critical points aren't todays christian traditions, so why don't you mention many of todays christian traditions which are for the common good? I'm a nobody in regarding how religion should be properly applied and I readily accept that fact. I just continually hear points concerning evil that's been a direct consequence of religion. But that hasn't been religions fault. It's man's misuse and misapplication of religion that's at fault - so it's an important aspect easily put aside in regards to arguments of religion being for good or bad. Concerning the points you made in your second paragraph, the so called filter deponds on how you've read the bible. To read it factually could probably be the fault - and therefore the reason why people continually dismiss the important points it has to make. Try reading it as you'd read poems or fictional tales is the advice I've received. To read it verbatim misses the issues. I get the sense that this is where a lot of your critiscism lies - and mine too. But my mind is open and I try to learn beyond that which I believe myself to know. Again (your 3rd para), I've no intention of changing your beliefs - I'm only trying to explain mine in relation to yours. And of course, you couldn't enforce such a policy - and I've no wish to see such a policy enforced. Encouraged, debated, and supported, yes. Your 4th para: unfortunately we can see this isn't working in todays society. We need a solution to the continual immorality. Have you any suggestions for suitable moral guidance? The Law works as a guidance in day to day life for sure. But it misses out on numerous immoral deeds that are legal. So it isn't the answer. And it never will be. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Just a few articles of varying severity to support my issue. The list could go on and on - as it could be said such crimes have been committed through time eternal in some similiar form or other. My point is the increasing frequency of such matters. I've asked the question why a number of days ago - any explanations? This is only going one way. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/28/ntime128.xml 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/25/nmuslims125.xml 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/23/npregnant23.xml 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7301530.stm 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/7350523.stm 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=561440&in_page_id=1770 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Really? Did he hook himself in or was it more of a visit to the hotdog stand? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

While I would not have chosen to phrase it the way [kallend] chose to, it does capture the underlying sentiment. A couple weeks ago I spoke with one of Sen Saxby Chambliss’ (R-GA) staffers. He couldn’t address the merit issue – he struggled but acknowledged that he couldn’t explain how voting against the bringing the bill to the Senate floor for debate could be in line with the principle of meritocracy nor could he explain endorsement of the implicit acknowledgement of significant amounts of prior (& ongoing)discrimination (as I outlined in my response to [lawrocket] above). I never even received any response from Sen Isakson’s office (R-GA). What do you think is really going on? VR/Marg This is hilarious Marge. What do you think!? Did his eyes start revolving like fruit machine/one-armed bandit wheels? Did he start to sweat and mutter 'wibble..'? Fantastic. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

That is argumentum ad populum and it's still a logical fallacy. A fallacy? How about this; your at a fork in the path. One road possibly leads to a painful and tortured death, whilst the other possibly leads to a happy and fulfilling life. Billions of people suggest you turn left. Not a single person suggests you turn right. Which way would you go? Would that decision be fallacy? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Some key words for you: Require; Need; Indispensability; Only. These are all absolute statements and you have, throughout this thread, used them in relation to the need for moral guidance, and the need for it to come from religion. So, when you say that I've "made up" your position that societies cannot be stable or good without religion you are either lying or don't have a clue how the english language works. Either way, it's your failing, not mine. By looking at only two single factors from a time that has seen more rapid and wholesale technological and social changes than any other. Now you have to explain why you have singled out the religious factor as overriding all the other changes that society has undergone. I don't want you to conduct a serous study, I do want you to at least think critically about the assertions you are making. No Jakee - you're forgetting the simple fact that you provided imagined statements you said I said. So, that in itself demonstrates poor integrity, especially as you then used the statements to support your attempts of ridicule, to make yourself feel better about yourself and your beliefs. People need moral guidance. Despite feeling you received suitable guidance from your non-religious parents, this wouldn't be suitable moral guidance for society. Your counter argument just relates to an individual whilst you know fine I'm relating my statements to society as a whole. I'll stand by the boldness of my statements though. What other forms of guidance would be suitable to prevent the increased immorality of society? All parents being agnostic atheists? That's all the counter argument you've provided so far, whilst still continuing to demonstrate superior knowledge which you refuse to divulge. My opinion is that society needs a unifying common moral guidance that I feel only religion, properly applied, can provide. If you've other suggestions or alternatives, let me know. I'm all ears ya fucker. Therefore, to continually bleat on about your perceived fact that I've only looked at two single factors is ridiculous. See my earlier post regarding this. Also, it's becoming ever more apparant your motivation to discuss such topics revolves around a desire to ridicule and belittle people who believe in God, because it's rather an easy thing to do. Especially if it makes you feel better about yourself, rather than discuss the issue directly. I believe I've given enough critical thought to my statements. Are you ready to discuss your apparant and considerable knowledge of the subject, or are you going to be continually obtuse and nitpick away whilst avoiding the issue? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

It's called argumentum ad populum and I would hope the majority of sane people would see that it is a logical fallacy as soon as it is pointed out to them. As for the avatar, it just cracks me up.

Culture, history, literature exist independently of religion or deities. If we don't teach history, how will our children know what a tremendous force for evil organized religion has been over the centuries? Man's misuse and misapplication of organized religion Prof. So the children don't think the problem solely lies with religion. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

They both don't have conclusive evidence in regard to their existance but one is still more credible than the other. Trust me, until the day I die, I'll always find more credibility in God than Carrowolves. And funny old thing, I think the majority of sane people would too. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Politicians use these tactics all the time and since they are by definition the contents of the gutter, I think the term is applicable. Still, how can I be mad at someone with an avatar like yours. Self-portrait? Jesus - I've brought myself to the level of politicians!! But has it been an upward or downward journey?

All I have seen in your previous posts is that billions of other people believing in something for which there is no evidence somehow makes it more credible than a brand new idea for which there is no evidence. It's faulty logic. That's not to say that you shouldn't believe what you want, just that there is no reason atheists should need to justify their non-belief. There simply isn't any reason for them to abandon their null hypothesis. And it does make it more credible, whether you find that logic faulty or not. Hence it makes for a poor comparrison, hence a poor point. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

yeahman, now you're talking my language don't know, don't care Amazing how many people here think they know, though. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

I've made my response clear enough earlier. As I've alluded to earlier. All the answers are there - go back and read them. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'