Christians showing love at Gay Pride

[Hobbs]

His perpetration of hate leads to violent acts by extremist anti-thiests the world over. Such people are enemies to the Church and any peaceful society.

[Ghel]

Regarding miracles: if you start with the assumption that miracles exist, the rest of your work is going to be flawed. If you start with the assumption that a god exists, the rest of your work will likewise be flawed. Whether miracles or a god exists should be determined by the evidence. It is the end of the investigation, not the beginning.

Regarding my signature: all that it states is that Einstein didn't think that religion was necessary for morality. Beyond that, I cannot say. Nor does that one quote tell us what Einstein's religious affiliation was. And Einstein's religious affiliation would not tell us whether he was right.

Regarding Dawkins: Hate is not violence, Hobbs. Your definition of terrorism specifically stated that violence was a necessary part of terrorism. If Dawkins has ever done anything violent in support of his views, it would be news to me.

[Hobbs]

How is he perpetrating violence against religion? All the quote says is that religion is not necessary. It does not say anything about forcing people to give up religion or punishing those who do not.

I was referring to Dawkins. Read next time.

[Rebel]

It's in your gorram signature.

He's perpetrating hate towards the religious.

How is he perpetrating hate against religion? All the quote says is that religion is not necessary. It does not say anything about forcing people to give up religion or punishing those who do not.

Rebel, as I've offered, Benedict XVI sought to investigate a priest and wasn't allowed to. The scandals you're referring to happened during Pope John Paul II's reign. You're probably one of those who blame Clinton for 9/11 too, aren't you?

Wow.

You do know the saying about people who assume right?

All I had stated was the actual proposal put forward by 2 people (who aren't Dawkins) to not only call to review the status of the Vatican in the UN, but to bring forth a legal proceeding against the current Pope for his direct involvement in alleged coverups of priest pedophilia. It was a direct counterpoint to your (unfounded) accusation of terrorism by Dawkins.

You also seem to love bringing up random other stories that have nothing to do with the current topic to prove your point. Like Clinton and 9/11.
I'll help you out. I see the main cause of that was political/social/religious tension that came to a boiling point.

But I'm guessing, in the end, that because I'm not agreeing with everything you say that I must be an uneducated crackpot who see conspiracies everywhere, and sleeps with tinfoil on my head

You're talking in circles, then. Let me try again: SUPPOSE THAT A GENUINE MIRACLE OCCURS. Now, how would you go about proving that it happened? What evidence would there be? (for example, it's perfectly ordinary wine, now that it exists)

Ghel is coming from a starting point of disbelief while you are coming from a starting point of belief.
Ghel doesn't believe in miracles, you do believe in miracles.
Ghel demands answers, but you are content with what you see/hear.
I don't see how Ghel's talking in circles at all. Different starting points lead to different finishing points.

[the_std]

You're talking in circles, then. Let me try again: SUPPOSE THAT A GENUINE MIRACLE OCCURS. Now, how would you go about proving that it happened?

Ghel has, in fact, answered the question because what HYHYBT is asking is not a question Ghel can answer. Ghel does not believe a genuine miracle can ever occur, so how else can she answer that question? Anything she saw that would be called miraculous, she would believe there was an alternate answer that she was just unaware of. How is that circular logic when she does not believe in the possibility of such a thing as a true miracle occuring?

The problem with the question is that you are taking the possibility of a genuine miracle for granted and then asking the people who do not believe in those miracles to provide proof. How can someone prove something they believe does not exist?

[Hobbs]

That's still circular logic and doesn't answer the question at all. In fact, you're simply dodging the question.

[Ghel]

SUPPOSE THAT A GENUINE MIRACLE OCCURS. Now, how would you go about proving that it happened? What evidence would there be? (for example, it's perfectly ordinary wine, now that it exists)

That's exactly the problem. How would I know it was a miracle? As I already explained, if I saw something that appeared to be a miracle, I would doubt my own senses. I would want to get independent, unbiased confirmation of the event. Have it repeated under controlled conditions, if possible. Find out what evidence there is besides my own memory (which is hearsay, and I would expect anybody listening to be skeptical of my retelling of it).

[HYHYBT]

You're absolutely right. Once we explain how something works, it's no longer a miracle. And that is exactly why I don't believe in miracles. There's no such thing as miracles, only things we haven't explained yet.

You're talking in circles, then. Let me try again: SUPPOSE THAT A GENUINE MIRACLE OCCURS. Now, how would you go about proving that it happened? What evidence would there be? (for example, it's perfectly ordinary wine, now that it exists)

[Hobbs]

What violence has Dawkins committed, exactly?



What? Where?

It's in your gorram signature.

He's perpetrating hate towards the religious.

Rebel, as I've offered, Benedict XVI sought to investigate a priest and wasn't allowed to. The scandals you're referring to happened during Pope John Paul II's reign. You're probably one of those who blame Clinton for 9/11 too, aren't you?

Here's a little something concerning the Vatican and it's sovereignity: http://geography.about.com/od/politi...cancountry.htm

[Rebel]

Yep. They're proposing that the Vatican's status is to be reviewed as it doesn't currently follow all the UN requirements to be recognized as a state.

Doing it all legal like.

Only then do they plan to bring up charges on the Pope.

I don't recall any plots of violence towards the Pope by this group of people. What are they?

Also, if you're going to condemn the leader of a nation for everything his subordinates do, then Clinton should be tried for pedophilia for the crime of Sgt. Stebbins (formerly 75th Rangers) who molested his girlfriend's daughter.

In that case, Sgt Stebbins was found guilty of rape and sentenced to 30 years jail. Bill Clinton had no part in the case.
The group looking to charge the Pope cite the apparent fact that the Pope made was aware of the rapes perpetrated by priests under his rule, but chose to cover them up.
Little bit of a difference.

[Ghel]

What violence has Dawkins committed, exactly?

... you seem to love Einstein to prove athiesm[sic] ...

What? Where?

[Hobbs]

As a cardinal, Benedict XVI actually tried to pursue the rape cases that came under his jurisdiction. In a famous example of one case, he was discouraged from pursuing it further from the Vatican. Also, if you're going to condemn the leader of a nation for everything his subordinates do, then Clinton should be tried for pedophilia for the crime of Sgt. Stebbins (formerly 75th Rangers) who molested his girlfriend's daughter.

The Vatican is a recognized nation within he UN and has a representative in the General Assembly. What they would be doing is tantamount to terrorism.

U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d)

(d) Definitions
As used in this section—
(1) the term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than 1 country;
(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;
(3) the term “terrorist group” means any group, or which has significant subgroups which practice, international terrorism;
(4) the terms “territory” and “territory of the country” mean the land, waters, and airspace of the country; and
(5) the terms “terrorist sanctuary” and “sanctuary” mean an area in the territory of the country—
(A) that is used by a terrorist or terrorist organization—
(i) to carry out terrorist activities, including training, fundraising, financing, and recruitment; or
(ii) as a transit point; and
(B) the government of which expressly consents to, or with knowledge, allows, tolerates, or disregards such use of its territory and is not subject to a determination under—
(i) section 2405(j)(1)(A) of the Appendix to title 50;
(ii) section 2371 (a) of this title; or
(iii) section 2780 (d) of this title

[Rebel]

Dawkins is nothing more than a hate-monger. Had he attempted his citizen's arrest, I would also label him a terrorist.

You mean the proposal by Geoffrey Robertson and Mark Stephens to prepare a legal case against Pope Benedict regarding his coverup of child molestation by Catholic priests? The one which all Dawkins had to do with it was get the number of a lawyer he knew that would be willing to help their case?

Agreeing with a proposal is not the same as being the person to execute it.

And to be fair, what Robertson and Stephens proposed was perfectly legal and would have followed all legal requirements in Britain. The Vatican is not a recognized state by the United Nations, meaning the Pope would not have been able to claim diplomatic immunity.

It would not have been popular, but it wouldn't have been terrorism.
And considering how little Dawkin's had to do with the plan, I don't see how he could be held accountable. Unless it's by people who are only going after him because he is a recognizable figure.
In the end, it did let a lot more people around the world know about the controversy surrounding the Pope.

He's your "prophet"

Nope. To be frank, I knew 'of' him, but not really 'about' him until you claimed this.

I'm an Athiest. I made the desicion myself when I was a child after learning about religion in school and at home. It didn't make sense to me personally, but I don't feel the need to argue people over to my way of thinking (unless they're being really obnoxious). Since then I like to read up about alternate theories regarding the world. Now I'm gonna buy "The God Delusion". It looks interesting.

[Hobbs]

My quote was merely posing that, as you seem to love Einstein to prove athiesm, his contemporaries did not share his same beliefs, or lack thereof.

Dawkins is nothing more than a hate-monger. Had he attempted his citizen's arrest, I would also label him a terrorist.

[Ghel]

He's your "prophet" ...

This is complete and utter nonsense. Even those who hold Dawkins in high esteem do not consider him a prophet, pope, or anything remotely similar. He is an evolutionary biologist who also happens to be a good writer and speaker.

The children had no reason to lie.

People don't need a reason to lie. We all do it, for good or bad reasons or no reason at all. And lying was only one potential explanation for the visions they claimed.

For one, how would they, "attention-hungry" though they were, be able to predict a meteorological event?

I'm not convinced they did. The Wikipedia article you linked to gave several possible explanations. The one that seems most likely is, since people were expecting something to happen, they stared at the sun long enough to screw with their vision. It happens to people all the time, but we don't call it a miracle.

They weren't educated-they were children-yet you seem to gloss over the fact that, within their vision, they were told an exact time for the event to take place.

Again, the children predicted that SOMETHING would happen, but not WHAT. People were expecting something to happen. Something did, as far as they could tell. That's a really poor prediction.

What I'm asking is that, if it were to occur ONCE, and you yourself knew it had happened, how would you go about proving it?

In that completely hypothetical situation, I would not trust my own senses. I would assume that the person tricked me, since it is outside my understanding of reality for someone to be able to turn water immediately into wine. I would not believe that this is what happened until we had an independent analysis done, including testing of both the water and the wine, elimination of any other explanations, and repetition of the event under controlled conditions. Of course, I would still be curious to understand how he did it.

This is true... but it would be evidence of *something* capable of overriding the physical laws. Because that's what "miracle" means. If you can repeat it and see how it works, then it isn't one.

You're absolutely right. Once we explain how something works, it's no longer a miracle. And that is exactly why I don't believe in miracles. There's no such thing as miracles, only things we haven't explained yet.

But again, you were saying that if God existed there'd be results. How do you go about deciding that there are none?

I don't. What I say is that nobody has ever sufficiently demonstrated that there are results that would convince any skeptical person that God exists.

... that's only the bare mechanics...

What else is there besides mechanics (and by mechanics, I assume you mean the laws of nature)?

[re: burden of proof] Why? That's only for scientific proofs.

You mean you don't use this in every day life? Do you blindly believe everything you're told without investigating?

... those pushing to advance atheism have switched from trying to argue it on its merits to simply insisting that their opinions MUST be assumed to be right unless absolute proof turns up showing otherwise ...

Atheism as a thought-out position would not exist if not for theism. Atheism has no merits on its own. It is only when an atheist responds to theism that it becomes a position on that subject.

"One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be a Divine intent behind it all."

-Wernher von Braun

Actually, one can. Every atheist is proof of that. I don't see any evidence of a "gigantic master plan."