Paris terror attack kills 12

That I'm hiding? If you are trying to communicate with me that I am hiding, then no I am not because I not understanding and thus couldn't be explaining it better than you. If you are just being smug and mysterious, let me know and I'll quit asking about it.

 

grammatical error!!! ip's on the ropes!!

 

Very true.
The individual happens to be the tree in that case tho. Is it easier to replace that with religion to remove the personal angle?

 

I would ask that question in reverse. That has been the point of contention all along, after all.

 

Not really.

Faith without works (or fruit) is dead.
Would a dead religion or belief system still be dumb or dangerous?

 

Dumb? Certainly.

Dangerous? Potentially.

Example- Aztec religion. It's dead. Was it dumb? Ya, flying rainbow snakes and being compelled to capture, enslave, and sacrifice people is dumb. Is it still dangerous? Well, the rituals and imagery from the dead religion have been copied by Mexican cartels to invoke fear and dread among their enemies and the civilian population. They decapitate heads, flay people alive, and eat hearts of enemies all as a reference to this mesoamerican religious legacy.

So there you go. Dead religions are dumb, and can be dangerous.

 

"Was it dumb?" Does that mean the only way it is dumb (to the point of relevance and or the effort to degrade by you) is when the fruits are evident?

What makes it "potentially" dangerous instead of just dangerous?

 

I sort of anticipated your question because I didn't address the dumb very well. It was and IS dumb because it is based on silly notions that are not only unfounded, but have significant evidence available to render them being extremely unlikely. We have a pretty good idea as to what makes corn grow well or not. Blood sacrifice isn't one of the factors. Therefore dumb. It reminds me of Idiocracy and gatorade: plants love blood! Why? Because it's what the harvest gods crave!

So when I say "dumb," I mean "very very likely not real and certainly has no substantial evidence of being real." And when I say "dangerous," I mean "has the capacity to harm or kill both believers and others, due to the nature of the authority and power it claims." A dead religion that is forgotten is therefore not dangerous. A dead religion that isn't practiced but still holds cultural sway in the form of blended superstitions or now empty rituals is still dangerous. Thus "potentially," depending on whether it is forgotten or not by the public.

 

Also, how does one degrade an idea? Can an idea be humiliated? If I say monarchies are silly because no person has the innate right to rule over another, am I degrading or humiliating monarchy?

You don't realize how much of a pedestal you are giving religion, and it is precisely the pedestal that I find both dumb (unwarranted) and dangerous (gives special weight that is not to be criticized).

 

I'm for cutting the tree down and using it for firewood.

 

I'm for just putting it in a museum like mummies and and ankhs and being done with it.

 

Interesting. Having all of that information and disregarding it to produce "fruits" (ironically enough, corn in this instance) would make them dumb and dangerous. No?

We have come back to the beginning it appears.

 

I think so. It is a real impasse. Just keep being good people, 8thers.

 

That would kinda be the whole point of dancing around the idea of separating the person from their religion of beliefs to allow you to throw rocks at the idea without making it come off personal.

You see the separation. I don't.

 

Ah, but apparently it is still coming off personal and not allowing me to throw rocks in some people's eyes. That is where the "don't care" part comes in. If I did, I'd be allowing other people's beliefs to infringe on my own. Me not caring isn't the same as me not setting out to or desiring to offend. It isn't my intent or objective, but I won't let it dissuade me from having a certain view.

 

And this is exactly why discussions like this are generally an exercise in futility. Many people of faith see that faith as a personal attribute, defining who they are. Therefore a perceived attack on their religion is often seen as an attack on the person of faith. It's pointless.

I think I understand IP's perspective and tend to agree on several points, but I also understand the very personal nature of faith even if it not something I experience personally. If a person is going to leave or find religion, it is going to be a very personal experience or process. Back and forth conversations like this one will lead to little more than greater entrenchment.

 

But my trench has fornication and gambling.

 

Mine is filled with wine, scotch, deviance and glitter.

 

Seriously; you have a problem with Jesus, MLK, Ghandi, Billy Graham, and Mother Teresa? Who does live up to your expectations?

To answer your question you don't cut down the fruit tree because 10% of the fruit is bad.

 

Just when I think that something constructive may occur, we get caught in the same cyclical arguments.....with the same people....saying the same things....over and over and over.

It's ok that Hat and IP are atheists and hate religion. For the religious amongst us, trust that both will someday be convinced of the error of their ways.

It's ok that others believe in God, Buddha, Oprah or whatever. If they try to force those beliefs upon you, by all means protest. But they have just as much of a right to believe, and to practice those beliefs, as you do to refuse to believe or practice them, at all.

Collectively - both sides, and equally - are all the most intolerant and narrow-minded sonsof[itch bay]es on the planet.

There is no scientific or philosophical means by which you will convince the believer that there is no God. It is impossible. Stop trying, as it only makes it worse.

And if Jehovah God himself came down, appeared in physical form, and fully explained the reality of His existence to both IP and Hat, they'd assume it was a figment of their imagination, and reject it outright. Can anyone give them more evidence than that? No? So, just stop trying to prove something to those who have neither the desire nor ability to believe it's true.

And besides, who are any of you dipshits to be telling anyone what to think about anything at all, much less beyond your narrow expertise in areas such as climatology, law, teaching school, stacking firewood or basketball?

None of you have it figured out. Likely, none of you ever will. Get over it, and yourselves.

Believers want to believe, and do.

Non-believers do not want to believe, and don't.

So just accept that, and leave them to it.

Geez.