BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 May 10 - 05:37 PM

Willie: "no, I can't accept that all things are made from light. So your argument falls at the first hurdle."

Do your homework!


Don T., I'm not sure what bug crawled up your rear-end, but you sound ready to piss and moan about EVERYTHING! If you say you are a Christian, than believe it..all of it. Picking and choosing, what selections you agree with, and then attacking those who point that out to you, is more ignorant, than anything you'd like to heap on those who do!!!

Get real!


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Gervase
Date: 05 May 10 - 05:47 PM

'Kinell; agnostics just as mad and intolerant as theists - shock!

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Bill D
Date: 05 May 10 - 05:48 PM

"If you say you are a Christian, than believe it..all of it"

Oh my... where have I heard THAT sort of reasoning before..

"My country, right or wrong"
"You're either for us or against us."

Believe WHOSE version of "it"?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 May 10 - 05:59 PM

Bill: "Believe WHOSE version of "it"? "

I'm not offering a version, and your analogy is off, too. I suppose, that if he is spiritually inclined, then he should seek the spirit to lead him into all truths.....at least that's what his Bible tells him to do....so-o-o-o-o, let him do it. No brainer!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Bill D
Date: 05 May 10 - 06:13 PM

Yep... I suspect Don T. can sort thru 'truths' just fine...without any need to 'believe it all' from ANY source.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 May 10 - 09:46 PM

""If you say you are a Christian, than believe it..all of it. Picking and choosing, what selections you agree with, and then attacking those who point that out to you, is more ignorant, than anything you'd like to heap on those who do!!!""

The secret is in the name, you prat.

"Christian".   Follower of the teachings of Christ. GET IT?

Not follower of the men in black frocks who have caused some of the greatest misery in the history of this planet.

I repeat.....Christianity is a way of life, not a place you go to once or twice a week to ask God for favours you don't deserve.

And I don't give a shit whether you believe that or not.

That's the thing about freedom of thought, and of faith, it allows those of us with more than half a dozen brain cells to make decisions based on morals and ethics, rather than dogma and liturgy force fed since childhood.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 May 10 - 02:57 AM

Easy there, chief. I'm not at all into the guys with the frocks. ..and you're right, Christian was a name given to the early believers. It meant Christ-like.

Comes from the Greek, 'Kristos' a unifying force. Christians believe that it came from an anointing from the Holy Spirit, which they believe lives inside the actual person..as in God's love, and his own spirit.

Hey, I got something for ya'......(first calm down).......

When you come to the edge of all the light you know, and are about to step off into the darkness of the unknown, faith, is knowing one of two things will happen. There will be either something solid to stand on, or you will be taught how to fly.

Peace,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: theleveller
Date: 06 May 10 - 03:43 AM

This thread wasn't intended to be an argument about who's belief is right or wrong – that will always be a dead end. What is was intended to be about was the ethics of belief – the rights and responsibilities of belief, especially where the actions they generate impinge on those who hold contradictory beliefs.

Had McFarlane said to the gay couple' "I CAN'T advise you because I haven't the knowledge or experience to do so" that would have been a responsible stance for someone in his position, putting the onus back on his employer. However, by saying, in effect, "I WON'T advise you because your actions go against my beliefs, even though those actions are lawful and do no harm to anyone else", he was fairly and squarely in the wrong because he was demonstrating an unreasonable prejudice.

Whatever beliefs we hold, we have to be responsible for the actions that come from them and cannot expect these actions to be upheld in law when they impinge on the rights of others.


theleveller - member fron sanity

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 06 May 10 - 04:33 AM

Good on yer, theleveller! Whilst agreeing that the thread is supposed to be about somebody thinking his superstition allows him to not do what he is paid to do.... we must expect the "my view has infallibility on its side" to creep in somewhere, so dead end or not, the thread will boil down to it until everybody gets bored.

Guest from sanity asked me to do some homework. I just did. I'm right, your'e wrong. Move on.

It is not easy having a right versus wrong argument with people who allow irrational concepts to form part of their stance, so for the time being it is best if superstitious people get on with being superstitious, and the vast majority of people remain vigilant to ensure god botherers don't let their hobby interfere with people who don't have such a hobby.

This judge has sent a message that helps people not feel threatened by strange people who smile too much and too often.....

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: theleveller
Date: 06 May 10 - 05:58 AM

Point taken, Willie. When I said it was a dead end I meant that we'll only know who's right and who's wrong when we're dead - or not, as the case may be!

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Bill D
Date: 06 May 10 - 10:13 AM

"It is not easy having a right versus wrong argument with people who allow irrational concepts to form part of their stance,..."

I think I will steal that line.... it kinda summarizes a number of ideas in a nicely compact way.

thanks, Willie.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Stu
Date: 06 May 10 - 10:55 AM

Has there ever been a better argument for keeping religion out of the public services? If people (like the chap in the OP) are incapable of doing that, then they shouldn't work for us out of respect for their fellow citizens.

That applies to all religions.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: mousethief
Date: 06 May 10 - 11:56 AM

I think it's really very simple and has nothing to do with religion at all. If you can't, in good conscience, perform all of the duties of the job, don't take the fucking job. Stands to reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: frogprince
Date: 06 May 10 - 12:27 PM

""If you say you are a Christian, than believe it..all of it. Picking and choosing, what selections you agree with,   is more ignorant, than anything you'd like to heap on those who do!!!""
You say you aren't a fundamentalist, but that is a fundamentalist statement through and through. Realistically, it can only mean that any true Christian has to believe every word of the Bible.

What chance is there that any single person here has not, on more than one occasion, found comfort and guidance in some published material outside the Bible. That could be anything from a "self help" book to a work of fiction that inspired you to see things in a more positive way. But no one tells you to either accept every word of that material or discard it all completely.

There are countless liberal Christians who find the Bible to be a rich source of strengh, guidance, and inspiration, but who realize that it is an accumulation of writings by fallible people, sometimes steeped in cultural values we could no longer dream of accepting, trying to sort out their relationship to God. There is nothing authoritative about the Bible.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Paul Burke
Date: 06 May 10 - 01:39 PM

Christianity is a way of life, not a place you go to once or twice a week

That's YOUR interpretation of Christianity. Other Christians might not believe that Jesus was God, or that his death was as significant as his teachings, or that his teachings were infallible and/ or complete. But no doubt you wouldn't call them Christians at all.

And even allowing your statement for argument's sake, it's not A way of life, it's MANY ways of life, often mutually contradictory.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 May 10 - 06:12 AM

""And even allowing your statement for argument's sake, it's not A way of life, it's MANY ways of life, often mutually contradictory.""

My point, which you are carefully ignoring, is that being a Christian doesn't, or shouldn't, stop when step out of the church on Sunday, and head for the pub.

So yes, it is a way of life, one of many, in that you are correct.

But in answer to your misinterpretation of what I said, I think if you check back through my posts on the subject, you will find that I said "For me, it is a way of life".

Don't agree?......Fine! I don't care too much what others do, I just choose for me.

That's what separates me from fundamentalists, the operative two syllables of which, are "mental".

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 May 10 - 09:41 AM

Willie: 'Guest from sanity asked me to do some homework. I just did. I'm right, your'e wrong. Move on"

What?..about all matter being made of light, and/or light particles???
Shit, I forgot, your brain....a vacuum???

Paul Burke: "..Other Christians might not believe that Jesus was God, or that his death was as significant as his teachings, or that his teachings were infallible and/ or complete. But no doubt you wouldn't call them Christians at all."

...or that you do!

Froggers: "You say you aren't a fundamentalist, but that is a fundamentalist statement through and through. Realistically, it can only mean that any true Christian has to believe every word of the Bible."

Actually, I'm not at all a fundamentalist...however, just because someone is well-read on the subject, and is familiar with the gig, don't go assuming that I'm a fundamentalist, or on the 'religious right'..I am not...to return the favor, just because you can spell, I'll pretend you aren't in the third grade!
As far as the second part of your statement, I don't think I've met a Christian who knows 'every word of the Bible'.

The BIG question, and the topic of the thread, would be....IF your Religious beliefs contradict civil law, or possibly a medical service, being provided, can you object to performing that procedure, based on your religious beliefs?

Methinks, you'd rather find some nuance to smear someone for their religious beliefs, even if they don't have any, than understand what they are, or why.......then attack someone ELSE for being a bigot!......just love you guys!
Can you spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E?????

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 07 May 10 - 12:01 PM

Why do I get the feeling I am having to deal with the oxymoron "light particles" before finally dealing with the moron.....

Yep, my brain is a vacuum, or at least 99.9998% of the space does not hold any matter (or wave...) so amazingly, you are inadvertently accurate, well done!

Pity your more metaphysical contributions didn't get a lucky break. The bit of my brain that is not empty space doesn't understand you. No matter, your view doesn't count in Willie's world.

Or, luckily, any sane world.

You know, when you have to make a list of contributors who you take issue with, and they just happen to be everybody who has posted since your last one, I would give up if I were you. If this was comedy rather than a serious debate, people would be laughing at you rather than with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: mousethief
Date: 07 May 10 - 12:04 PM

A photon without obvious contradiction could be called a light particle.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 May 10 - 12:16 PM

Willie, as I've posted before, "The difference between GENIUS and STUPIDITY, is that GENIUS and its limits!"....Albert Einstein

Now sit down!...and let nothing circulate in that vacuum!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 May 10 - 12:22 PM

Willie, as I've posted before, "The difference between GENIUS and STUPIDITY, is that GENIUS has its limits!"....Albert Einstein

Now sit down!...and let nothing circulate in that vacuum!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,999
Date: 07 May 10 - 12:45 PM

God asked me to tell you all to stop talking about this shit. Yes, the Constitution protects your rights to believe as you wish, BUT he says you shouldn`t piss him off because he`ll send a flood and wipe you out.

If anyone`s upset by that, please don`t shoot the messenger. And, have a NICE day.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: frogprince
Date: 07 May 10 - 01:03 PM

And that is the most intelligent thing posted for awhile!
       (heeheeheeheehee)

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Bill D
Date: 07 May 10 - 01:17 PM

How messages from God REALLY work

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: mousethief
Date: 07 May 10 - 02:09 PM

God promised no more floods. It's lava this time.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 May 10 - 02:16 PM

Anybody else notice the increase in volcanic activity over the last few decades?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Bill D
Date: 07 May 10 - 03:56 PM

"Anybody else notice the increase in volcanic activity over the last few decades?"

Sure...the supply of virgins to sacrifice is way down...

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: mousethief
Date: 07 May 10 - 06:01 PM

It's all those Catholic priests.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 08 May 10 - 11:07 AM

God already did punish me. The Owls were relegated to the fizzy pop league...

I wish he would send a flood. Despite a bit of rain, the soil is bone dry after an inch or two, and my tatas need a bit of moisture, not to mention the greenhouse plants that are watered by an irrigation system from a water butt.

And don't get me started on the Jehovah's Witnesses coming to the door the other day when I was getting out of the shower and expecting a delivery so came down in a towel dripping wet. Now... remembering that God botherers are used to being proved wrong all the ruddy time and that not deterring them... Get a load of this; they saw I was "recently baptised" and still dripping wet and yet still started rattling on about the bible even as the door slammed... Got to admire their perseverance.

Unlike the bloke this thread is about, who thought his hobby allows him not to do what he is paid to do. I don't admire his sanctimonious arrogance.

Oh, guest from sanity; I heard you the first time. So did Albert, and he told me to tell you to f..........

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Amos
Date: 08 May 10 - 10:05 PM

ALl things are NOT made of light. The photon is a gauge boson. Photons are the quantum of light and other electromagnetic energy, regarded as discrete particles having zero rest mass, no electric charge, and an indefinitely long lifetime. Matter absorbs photons, and matter emits photons, but matter is not "made of" photons.

It is possible that all things are made of thought, including light, but that is a different metaphysic altogether than this shallow-witted attempt to proselytize "enlightened" Christianity as some sort of global absolute.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: mousethief
Date: 09 May 10 - 12:20 AM

Planck's Constant is a global absolute. I may start a church with Planck's Constant as its deity. Properly handled, it could make me a lot of money.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Amos
Date: 09 May 10 - 01:08 AM

I think I know what your platform will start with...

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: mousethief
Date: 09 May 10 - 01:10 AM

I'll have to remove the Planck from my own eye first.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 May 10 - 02:15 AM

Steamin' Willie: "Oh, guest from sanity; I heard you the first time. So did Albert, and he told me to tell you to f.........."

"......ind someone who has more intelligence to correspond with, who isn't so pre-occupied with his 'steamin' willie'...so much, he names himself after it"

Of course Al,..What was I thinking?? I mean, look where all his brains are!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: mousethief
Date: 09 May 10 - 02:37 AM

I love irony but enough is enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 09 May 10 - 05:57 AM

At last, somebody recognises my "handle" as being my pan handle. Takes one to know one nerr err.

Planck's constant is not an absolute to be fair, and can only be exhibited as being less than probability of position multiplied by probability of time. ergo - there is a probability it is an absolute, and then only for the reason of being a relative mathematical quantity for relative resolution.

Which comes down to light versus enlightened.

Or put another way, some see being enlightened as seeing Jesus's love. Others see being enlightened as seeing Jesus is a cracking good yarn, even selling more than Wilbur Smith on a good day.

Planck's constant weaves into the probability of the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow turning out to be a bucket of shit.

Despite blokes with large hats sitting in the House of Lords, law is secular and it took an "enlightened" judge to see through the mist (or ether...) and state the fact.

Next step, allow me to buy a washer for my leaking tap after 4.00pm on a Sunday. Can't wait..

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: mousethief
Date: 09 May 10 - 01:21 PM

Truly you have a dizzying intellect.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Amos
Date: 09 May 10 - 02:22 PM

As a contribution to the power of your dizzying intellect, let me suggest buying a box of washers, assorted, and keeping them with your tools for just such emergencies...



A

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 May 10 - 02:28 PM

Amos: "As a contribution to the power of your dizzying intellect, let me suggest buying a box of washers, assorted, and keeping them with your tools for just such emergencies..."

".....and if you need to figure it out, you can rely on your box of rocks..between your ears!"

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Bill D
Date: 09 May 10 - 02:29 PM

So Planck, Occam and Heisenberg walk into a bar and meet Descartes, who soon doesn't know WHAT to think.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 May 10 - 03:16 PM

Bill D: "So Planck, Occam and Heisenberg walk into a bar and meet Descartes, who soon doesn't know WHAT to think......"

.....So he became a liberal Democrat, where he was instructed both WHAT to think, and how to re-act. He dies not long after, from boredom....but not before he took up singing Folk/protest songs!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Bill D
Date: 09 May 10 - 03:39 PM

"...where he was instructed both WHAT to think, and how to re-act."

I thought it was Rush Limbaugh who dispensed that kind of wisdom....my liberal friends never quite agree on the details...which may account for some of the election results recently.

Now...back to the silly physicist remarks...

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Amos
Date: 09 May 10 - 03:54 PM

HfS has a bee in her bonnet, believing that anyone who does not see the world as she does must have been programmed into robotic compliance by one of the Lurking Powers.

Sad it is not so, but, in a larger sense, a great blessing.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 May 10 - 04:07 PM

I stand corrected...he joined A political party....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 10 May 10 - 05:44 AM

My method for resolving my dilemma was to purchase, via the internet (which doesn't recognise superstition) a couple of quarter turn ceramic valve tap inserts, thus negating the need to either buy washers nor indeed chase Schroedinger's cat with Occam's razor. (Sorry, I have a bet with a fellow mudcatter that I couldn't weave the RSPCA into this thread.)

Dizzying intellect? Who has one of those then? Guest from Sanity?

I reckon the clue is in the title of this thread; "religious beliefs - no standing in law." it obviously wasn't said as a debating point but a fact. I'm comfortable with that. In the meantime, for all our true believers out there, whether it be Jesus, Mohammed, a tree or Elvis; Stop quoting Einstein and then go on to say why superstition is relevant to law. Because you'd better watch out, you'd better beware, Albert said........

"You cannot solve a problem with the mindset that created it."

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: mousethief
Date: 10 May 10 - 12:21 PM

Sad old secularists who can't tell the difference between superstition and religion. When will they evolve?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Bill D
Date: 10 May 10 - 01:27 PM

...ummm..well, perhaps they are waiting for the religious ones to figure out the difference....

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: mousethief
Date: 11 May 10 - 01:33 AM

I'm waiting for the internet to get invented.

Oh. Never mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Steamin Willie
Date: 11 May 10 - 12:26 PM

Well, considering religious belief must be, by any definition, a belief, then it must be believing something. Now, believing the sun is hot takes little or no imagination and can by conversational definition be a fact.

Religious belief however involves accepting irrational statements, such as an interventionalist god, elevating some humans to the status of being different to the rest of us and capable of doing things that no human can ever have done. Also, religious people don't like their irrational behaviour to be questioned, hence the Spanish inquisition, crusades, Islamic terror etc.

Whilst accepting that religion is a proxy for having power over others, that aside it certainly looks like a superstition to me?

There is no difference between the existence of a god and the existence of a hobbit that lives in my pantry but is invisible and therefore I cannot see it. Neither can exist unless and until somebody proves otherwise. I am amused by those who say normal people must prove there is no god rather than superstitious people prove there is one. Sorry, but your mental health is for you to deal with, not me. All I can do is a) point and laugh and b) go out of my way to stop religion having an intervention in my life. Get the bishops out of the Lords, repeal laws that are based on religion such as opening hours of shops and have the guts to call a bigot a bigot, even if, or especially if for that matter, he wears a dog collar and thinks that being a woman or a gay dude prevents anybody doing his job to the same level of expertise.

This judgement is a good start.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Amos
Date: 11 May 10 - 01:09 PM

Religious belief however involves accepting irrational statements.

I submit that depends on the religion and the statements. Our dominant religions--Christianity, Judaism, Mohammedanism, have plenty of authoritarian dicta that aren't rational by any usual standard of the word. But they also have a lot of wise and pithy syaings which are useable as general guides in the confusions of life and which although they are not material can certainly be deemed rational. Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoisdm are also rich with propositions which are pretty rational even when they are abstract and sometimes poetic.

A lot of intellectual abuse has been perpetrated by churches and priests of various religions (whatever they are called). This makes people understandably of the whole sloppy mess. But, ya know, babies versus bath water.


A

A