lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: Atheists sue to keep 'In God We Trust' off Capitol Visitor Center
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 07-21-2009, 07:10 PM   #41
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyp Dooran View Post
If the words, "There is no God," were etched onto a governmental building, there would be no harm done to theists; yet it would break the same principle that is being broken by engraving "In God We Trust."
Indeed, and I'd like anyone here to say with a straight face that they believe that the religious right wouldn't collectively flip their **** if there was any possibility of the phrase "There is no God" being etched into a government building.



ET Warrior is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-22-2009, 02:11 AM   #42
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
All you're effectively contending here in the end is that both sides are equally excitable.


Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-22-2009, 02:27 AM   #43
Darth Avlectus
Your point?
 
Darth Avlectus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Attack on Titan
Posts: 4,255
Current Game: Soul Calibur 5
I guess I could go for a dual excitement scenario.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyp Dooran View Post
That's pretty debatable as I would say it is definitely going against the idea of separation of church and state.
Perhaps you're right in that respect. However, one doesn't *strictly* need church to believe in God.


"I cant see S***! --YOU GO TO HELL!" --Tourettes guy
Darth Avlectus is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-22-2009, 10:16 AM   #44
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf View Post
All you're effectively contending here in the end is that both sides are equally excitable.
I assuredly don't disagree with that. My point is merely that it's pretty hypocritical for the religious right to get all pissy that the atheists are suing to keep it out, when they'd be doing the exact same thing were positions reversed.



ET Warrior is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-22-2009, 10:39 AM   #45
Q
The one who knocks
 
Q's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: ABQ
Posts: 6,643
Current Game: Mowing down neos with my M60
LF Jester Forum Veteran Helpful! 
ET's put forth the best argument in this thread.

Any appearance of bias towards either side in this issue, implied or otherwise, should be avoided in accordance with the 1st Amendment.

Even when I was a child, I noticed that "In God we trust" didn't jive too well with the concept of separation of church and state.


"They should rename the team to the Washington Government Sucks. Put Obama on the helmet. Line the entire walls of the stadium with the actual text of the ACA.
Fix their home team score on the board to the debt clock, they can win every game 17,000,000,000,000 to 24. Losing team gets taxed by the IRS 100%, then droned."
-Toker
Q is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-22-2009, 12:28 PM   #46
Jae Onasi
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem
 
Jae Onasi's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 10,912
Current Game: Guild Wars 2, VtMB, TOR
Alderaan News Holopics contributor Helpful! LucasCast staff Veteran Fan Fic Author 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ET Warrior View Post
I assuredly don't disagree with that. My point is merely that it's pretty hypocritical for the religious right to get all pissy that the atheists are suing to keep it out, when they'd be doing the exact same thing were positions reversed.
If it was not the national motto, upheld by the Supreme Court as acceptable and not a violation of the First Amendment, then I would agree with you that it is hypocritical, and that it should not be placed in a government building. Until that point, I think it's fine, and the atheist organization is wasting its time and money. But hey, if they want to make a statement, more power to them. It's a free country.

Achilles, your argument about how I feel about atheists fails because you generalize inappropriately and work from several incorrect premises. I'm sorry we've gotten to the point where we dislike each other so much that you take anything I say as an insult to you personally and atheists in general. I do not dislike most atheists, and I care a great deal about the ones I consider my friends.


From MST3K's spoof of "Hercules Unchained"--heard as Roman medic soldiers carry off an unconscious Greek Hercules on a 1950's Army green canvas stretcher: "Hi, we're IX-I-I. Did somebody dial IX-I-I?"

Read The Adventures of Jolee Bindo and see the amazing Peep Surgery
Story WIP: The Dragonfighters
My blog: Confessions of a Geeky Mom--Latest post: Security Alerts!
Love Star Trek AND gaming? Check out Lotus Fleet.

Jae Onasi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-22-2009, 12:52 PM   #47
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi View Post
Achilles, your argument about how I feel about atheists fails because you generalize inappropriately and work from several incorrect premises.
Sure, Jae. What are they?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi View Post
I'm sorry we've gotten to the point where we dislike each other so much that you take anything I say as an insult to you personally and atheists in general.
First, I don't think you're sorry at all.

Second, I don't "take anything you say as an insult to me personally and atheists in general". I do the same thing with your posts that I do with all posts: question inconsistencies and point out fallacies. If you want to discuss what you said, then great. If you want to feign sorrow and hope that no one notices that that it's actually condescension, then I think we both have better things to do with our time, no?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi View Post
I do not dislike most atheists, and I care a great deal about the ones I consider my friends.
Kudos.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-22-2009, 02:55 PM   #48
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi View Post
If it was not the national motto, upheld by the Supreme Court as acceptable and not a violation of the First Amendment
And since it would appear that the group bringing forth the lawsuit is of the opine that having 'In God We Trust' as the national motto is problematic, wouldn't this be more or less the appropriate process for them to take to attempt to get that kind of thing changed?



ET Warrior is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-22-2009, 05:06 PM   #49
Darth InSidious
A handful of dust.
 
Darth InSidious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The Eleven-Day Empire
Posts: 5,765
Current Game: KotOR II
Is not a fundamental principle of your country that, to borrow a maxim, vox populi vox Dei est, or at least, vox populi de lege ferenda? And is the phrase "In God We Trust", according to the source quoted in Achilles' opening post, not approved of by 90% of your nation's populace?



Works-In-Progress
~
Mods Released
~
Quid existis in desertum videre?
Darth InSidious is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-22-2009, 07:03 PM   #50
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ET Warrior View Post
And since it would appear that the group bringing forth the lawsuit is of the opine that having 'In God We Trust' as the national motto is problematic, wouldn't this be more or less the appropriate process for them to take to attempt to get that kind of thing changed?
*Wonders* Hmm....spend $100K on a project---stimulus in action --that most Americans don't have a problem with in principle (except for the part about that nasty little insolvency problem the govt is futhering in general) or wasting a ton of money in a court battle that will likely exceed the $100K of the project. I guess no matter how you look at it....legal fees ftw (ok, to lawyers, anyway ). Perhaps the better thing to do is accept the inevitability of it and then continue to go on a publicity tour about why you think it's wrong. Evolution (I thhought atheists loved that concept ), not revolution.


Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-23-2009, 08:57 AM   #51
Q
The one who knocks
 
Q's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: ABQ
Posts: 6,643
Current Game: Mowing down neos with my M60
LF Jester Forum Veteran Helpful! 
I'm just going to throw this out there:

1) Why should how we feel about someone personally be a factor in whether or not we agree with them? Does it make them any more or less right or wrong?

2) Since when did the Supreme Court of the United States have the authority to determine whether or not a policy is hypocritical?


"They should rename the team to the Washington Government Sucks. Put Obama on the helmet. Line the entire walls of the stadium with the actual text of the ACA.
Fix their home team score on the board to the debt clock, they can win every game 17,000,000,000,000 to 24. Losing team gets taxed by the IRS 100%, then droned."
-Toker
Q is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-23-2009, 11:38 AM   #52
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,052
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
I’m against “In God We Trust” and I am not an Atheist. First, I am a firm believer in the separation of church and state. 2nd as a Christian I believe it is us that should be suing to keep God’s name off the Capitol. Isn’t that kind of degrading to the name of God?


mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-23-2009, 12:22 PM   #53
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimartin View Post
Isnít that kind of degrading to the name of God?
Kind of? Nice understatement.


Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-23-2009, 12:48 PM   #54
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Q View Post
1) Why should how we feel about someone personally be a factor in whether or not we agree with them? Does it make them any more or less right or wrong?
Great point. Unfortunately, it seems that objectivity isn't the virtue it once was.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Q View Post
2) Since when did the Supreme Court of the United States have the authority to determine whether or not a policy is hypocritical?
If you mean what I think you mean, the answer is: since the Constitution was written.

Link
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-23-2009, 01:46 PM   #55
Q
The one who knocks
 
Q's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: ABQ
Posts: 6,643
Current Game: Mowing down neos with my M60
LF Jester Forum Veteran Helpful! 
They have the authority to determine whether or not a policy is constitutional, yes. In this case I'd say that they were wrong.

They have no authority over the definition of hypocrisy, however.


"They should rename the team to the Washington Government Sucks. Put Obama on the helmet. Line the entire walls of the stadium with the actual text of the ACA.
Fix their home team score on the board to the debt clock, they can win every game 17,000,000,000,000 to 24. Losing team gets taxed by the IRS 100%, then droned."
-Toker
Q is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-23-2009, 03:06 PM   #56
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Q View Post
They have the authority to determine whether or not a policy is constitutional, yes. In this case I'd say that they were wrong.
And I would agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Q View Post
They have no authority over the definition of hypocrisy, however.
I agree here as well, however I don't think that defining hypocrisy is the topic at hand. I would say that judicial review does allow the court some leeway to decide whether something is hypocritical or not, but I think we're also being very liberal with the term.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-24-2009, 01:04 AM   #57
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
"In God We Trust" clearly has no place on government buildings or coin. That it is the national motto, replacing the more relevant and unifying e pluribus unum, is itself a violation of Church-State separation and gives favor to a single, monotheistic superstition. There are other superstitions held by American citizens that are marginalized which is unfair. Americans have the right to pursue religious beliefs without government favor, regardless of what their superstitions are (or aren't). What if someone believes in multiple gods? Or a god that isn't to be named? Or a blue elephant? These propositions are equally valid and just as likely as that of any Judeo-Christian cult.

Moreover, the Republican from California pushing for this should be ashamed and embarrassed given the cost. $100,000 could do a lot of charity. Feed a lot of kids. Pay for a lot of immunizations and health care in community. But he'd rather purchase four words.

The suit filled by the FFRF is patriotic and righteous. Let's hope the case is once again review by the Supreme Court and the motto itself found unconstitutional.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-24-2009, 01:07 AM   #58
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker View Post
Moreover, the Republican from California pushing for this should be ashamed and embarrassed given the cost. $100,000 could do a lot of charity. Feed a lot of kids. Pay for a lot of immunizations and health care in community. But he'd rather purchase four words.
I'm sure he'll feel about as ashamed as any pol who "wastes" tax payer money on any kind of boonboggle.


Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-25-2009, 05:24 AM   #59
Kurgan
Headhunter
 
Kurgan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1997
Location: The Dawn of Time
Posts: 18,322
LFN Staff Member 10 year veteran! 
I think atheists are capable of acting like a superstitious cult like the best of us, but if they want to try this, good luck to them!


Oh wait, they don't believe in that either (most of them anyway, not to generalize).

Nothing happens to me either way if such a motto appears on a building or coin, or doesn't, so I don't really have a stake. I think the main reason people are interested in stuff like this is the legal precedents that can affect long term trends, etc.

Don't forget, ALL costs could be used to feed hungry children or spent on something else, and that goes for any cause! One can always argue there is something "more important." Just sayin'!


Download JK2 maps for JA Server|BOOT CAMP!|Strategic Academy|
(JA Server: 108.178.55.189:29070)


"The Concussion Rifle is the weapon of a Jedi Knight Player, an elegant weapon, from a more civilized community." - Kyle Katarn
Kurgan is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-25-2009, 12:20 PM   #60
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurgan View Post
I think atheists are capable of acting like a superstitious cult like the best of us, but if they want to try this, good luck to them!
Of course they're capable. They're human. It's just not as likely or prevalent. :-)

Quote:
Nothing happens to me either way if such a motto appears on a building or coin, or doesn't, so I don't really have a stake. I think the main reason people are interested in stuff like this is the legal precedents that can affect long term trends, etc.
That is one of the primary concerns, as well as the re-writing of American history. Modern religious conservatives seek to dominate government and, ultimately, insert their superstitions into law and policy. This isn't just a rant or an opinion on my behalf, but an admission and a statement of fact by these religious conservatives themselves. Its necessary to counter this from a rational and realistic perspective in order to preserve American ideals and history not to mention protect the religious freedoms of future generations.

Quote:
Don't forget, ALL costs could be used to feed hungry children or spent on something else, and that goes for any cause! One can always argue there is something "more important." Just sayin'!
Very true. And the funds Lungren wants to spend are general taxpayer money. The funds the FFRF is spending is donated to their cause specifically for just such legal action. Many of FFRF's donors also donate to worthy causes and all of their American donors pay taxes. We (FFRF supporters, of which I'm proud to say I am) are fully prepared to feed and help the needy and we do.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-25-2009, 06:39 PM   #61
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker View Post
Of course they're capable. They're human. It's just not as likely or prevalent. :-)
And if you believe that.....
Quote:
That is one of the primary concerns, as well as the re-writing of American history. Modern religious conservatives seek to dominate government and, ultimately, insert their superstitions into law and policy. This isn't just a rant or an opinion on my behalf, but an admission and a statement of fact by these religious conservatives themselves. Its necessary to counter this from a rational and realistic perspective in order to preserve American ideals and history not to mention protect the religious freedoms of future generations.
Just how big is that soapbox you're on anyway? Are you asserting that progressive liberals are really any more innocent.

Quote:
Very true. And the funds Lungren wants to spend are general taxpayer money. The funds the FFRF is spending is donated to their cause specifically for just such legal action. Many of FFRF's donors also donate to worthy causes and all of their American donors pay taxes. We (FFRF supporters, of which I'm proud to say I am) are fully prepared to feed and help the needy and we do.
Well, as long as the FFRF are going to pay ALL the costs of the lawsuit..


Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-25-2009, 11:17 PM   #62
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf View Post
And if you believe that.....
It isn't a matter of belief. It's a matter of logic.

Superstition is a necessary and sufficient quality of being a Conservative Christian who believes that there is not only a god we should trust but his/her particular notion of a god which is exclusive of the other hundreds of thousands of gods humanity has embraced in perhaps the last 100,000 - 160,000 years.

Quote:
Just how big is that soapbox you're on anyway?
This is a form of ad hominem argument called poisoning the well. I don't usually encounter it unless the person with an opposing point of view is lacking in substantive or reasoned argument. Is this the case?

Quote:
Are you asserting that progressive liberals are really any more innocent.
I don't care about politics. I find politics revolting. In fact, I find liberals and moderates to be problematic as well -too much tolerance for Islamic cults for example. I mention religious conservatives not so much in the political sense as in the degree of religiosity sense.

Quote:
Well, as long as the FFRF are going to pay ALL the costs of the lawsuit..
They fund the legal costs they're responsible for.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-26-2009, 12:16 AM   #63
Samuel Dravis
 
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,973
I don't think it's exactly correct to say that someone is necessarily superstitious because they are Christian, although I don't doubt it's likely that someone who is Christian is probably superstitious. Christianity doesn't necessarily entail believing in magic; e.g., God's actions are not magical, any more than my ability to walk is. Innate abilities, however amazing they might be, simply do not count as nature-defying magic. Nor does believing in Christianity necessarily imply fear of God, run contrary to evidence or entail ignorance.

I don't know if atheists act like superstitious cults more often than religious people do or not. I certainly don't hear about them as often, but then again, there are far fewer atheists available in general... particularly ones that would think it worthwhile to become a target for the fanatics' vitriol. It might be fun to be Dawkins for a while, but death threats probably aren't the fun part of the package.


"Words are deeds." - Wittgenstein
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-26-2009, 12:34 AM   #64
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis View Post
Christianity doesn't necessarily entail believing in magic; e.g., God's actions are not magical, any more than my ability to walk is.
I'm not sure why you're introducing "magical". Supernatural is both accurate and sufficient.

Perhaps you could help me understand the ways in which belief in a supernatural being is not superstitious?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis View Post
Innate abilities, however amazing they might be, simply do not count as nature-defying magic.
Every claim regarding the judeo-christian god I've ever heard contains some element that is considered "nature-defying". Omnipotence and omnipotence seems like pretty "nature-defying" attributes to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis View Post
Nor does believing in Christianity necessarily imply fear of God, run contrary to evidence or entail ignorance.
"Fear of god" is not a requirement for superstition.

Because god cannot be ruled out does not mean that we have good reasons for accepting that he/she/it does exist. Therefore accepting such a claim would be to do so from a position of ignorance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis View Post
It might be fun to be Dawkins for a while, but death threats probably aren't the fun part of the package.
Indeed. I remember getting a lot of emails from Sam Harris asking for donations for Ayaan Hirsi Ali's security fund. I realize the Dawkins has become something of a poster child, however I think anyone who takes the time to educate themselves will find that most everyone that speaks out against religion on a national/international level doesn't have to wait long for threats of violence to start rolling in.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-26-2009, 01:27 AM   #65
Samuel Dravis
 
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
I'm not sure why you're introducing "magical". Supernatural is both accurate and sufficient.

Perhaps you could help me understand the ways in which belief in a supernatural being is not superstitious?
Certainly. I looked up "superstition" in the dictionary, and found that a Christian's beliefs need not fit the description (though they obviously can). That was where my list of "doesn't-have-to's" came from, actually.

Quote:
Every claim regarding the judeo-christian god I've ever heard contains some element that is considered "nature-defying". Omnipotence and omnipotence seems like pretty "nature-defying" attributes to me.
Only if you consider those things to be against nature, which to a Christian they would not necessarily be. As in my example, the omnipotence thing can be explained as merely the result of the sort of being that God is, just as my ability to walk is the result of my being a human being that is reasonably fit. Neither of these can be called unnatural by any stretch of the imagination.

Quote:
"Fear of god" is not a requirement for superstition.
See above.

Quote:
Because god cannot be ruled out does not mean that we have good reasons for accepting that he/she/it does exist. Therefore accepting such a claim would be to do so from a position of ignorance.
If it were to go as you describe, sure, you're quite correct. But few people believe in God because evidence leads them to it. In fact, I do not think any evidence would be sufficient to prove God's existence. From what I can tell, the story goes: Get born, learn about God from your parents, sunday school, friends, see Jesus on the wall, pray over the table and before you go to bed, etc etc. In none of these activities resides the action of "looking to make sure God's there" or anything like it.

And then look at the sort of thing which usually facilitates conversions later on in life. Spiritual crisis, loss of family members, despair at being a good person / over addictions, etc. These also do not involve examination of physical evidence, but a "change of the heart". I think it's interesting that none of the writers in the Bible ever tried to prove God's existence philosophically; indeed, there's a defense of faith of sorts by Paul in Acts 22 which shows a method of justification extremely far from modern natural theology. Kierkegaard is an interesting read on the subject of despair and faith, and I recommend his "The Sickness Unto Death."

So, my understanding of the question, in its natural environment, is that it is not empirical, and given modern Christianity, necessarily so; if there is no possible difference in evidence between two options, then appeals to a decision based on which side has the most evidence are nonsensical. The statement "God exists" effectively turns into an attitude towards life and declaration of the way the believer will go about living. Interpreting it strictly as an empirical statement is to ignore the whole surroundings within which the belief was formed and given meaning. Paul's conversion and faith did not consist of "I didn't believe [that Japan is on the other side of the world] and now I do"; instead, it was "I will change my entire life."

Given this, your criticism is too limited to address the normal reasons for believing that a normal Christian might have, and for some people it may not address any of their reasons at all. It also would mean that belief in Christianity does not require a position of ignorance, since knowledge of evidence or proofs does not necessarily come into play.

Nietzsche provides criticisms of Christianity that could be effective in ways the empirical criticism is not, but they (from my limited reading, and I assure you it's very limited) seem to work mostly by persuasion, not "brute force" logic. Perhaps Jonathan7 could comment on those; I know he's read more of Nietzsche than I have.

My main point, however, was only that I disagreed with Skinwalker over his use of "superstition" as a necessary component to Christianity. I'm sure the two coexist quite well most places.


"Words are deeds." - Wittgenstein

Last edited by Samuel Dravis; 07-26-2009 at 04:36 AM.
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-26-2009, 04:03 AM   #66
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis View Post
Certainly. I looked up "superstition" in the dictionary, and found that a Christian's beliefs need not fit the description (though they obviously can). That was where my list of "doesn't-have-to's" came from, actually.
I guess I'm still not seeing it.

Christians believe that jesus was the son of god, born of a virgin, who died for our sins and was resurrected after three day to ascend into heaven.

That part alone hits every single branch on the way down out of the superstition tree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis View Post
Only if you consider those things to be against nature, which to a Christian they would not necessarily be.
Well certainly there are all manner of things that I cannot rule out. We have yet to observe omnipotence or omniscience in nature. That doesn't mean that they don't exist. But that also means that we don't have good reasons to think that they do.

So if one were to suggest that we should accept those claims without observing them in nature, then they must remain supernatural constructs until such time that we can move them into the "natural" column.

And, obviously, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim in the mean time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis View Post
As in my example, the omnipotence thing can be explained as merely the result of the sort of being that God is, just as my ability to walk is the result of my being a human being that is reasonably fit. Neither of these can be called unnatural by any stretch of the imagination.
As per above, I'm still not seeing it.

Locomotion is rampant throughout the animal kingdom. Many species are capable of bi-pedal locomotion. There is a naturalistic explanation for why it is that you can walk, run, waltz, tango, break-dance, etc. Surely it is amazing in the same way that our opposable thumbs allow us to efficiently utilize tools. You are right to say there is nothing "unnatural" here.

But where is the rationale for omnipotence? Where do we see vestigial parts in the evolutionary chain of history? We don't. It's...supernatural. One "being" alone allegedly possesses this trait (depending on who you ask) and we have absolutely zero evidence that any of it is true.

You're saying that christians don't have to believe in the supernatural to be christians. My question is, how in the heck can you still call them christians if you take away all the christian doctrine? What is left?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis View Post
If it were to go as you describe, sure, you're quite correct. But few people believe in God because evidence leads them to it. In fact, I do not think any evidence would be sufficient to prove God's existence.
Surely an omnipotent being would be able to do something to convince you, Mr. Dravis. Even my skepticism doesn't go that far.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis View Post
From what I can tell, the story goes: Get born, learn about God from your parents, sunday school, friends, see Jesus on the wall, pray over the table and before you go to bed, etc etc. In none of these activities resides the action of "looking to make sure God's there" or anything like it.

And then look at the sort of thing which usually facilitates conversions later on in life. Spiritual crisis, loss of family members, despair at being a good person / over addictions, etc. These also do not involve examination of physical evidence. Kierkegaard is an interesting read on this subject, and I recommend his "The Sickness Unto Death."
I understand but these are all horrible reasons for belief. They are understandable reasons, but that doesn't excuse that they are horrible reasons.

As such, I direct you back to your own source:

"a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation"

Unless I'm missing something, christianity is superstition per your source and your argument above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis View Post
So, my understanding of the question, in its natural environment, is that it is not empirical, and given modern Christianity, necessarily so; if there is no possible difference in evidence between two options, then appeals to a decision based on which side has the most evidence are nonsensical. The statement "God exists" effectively turns into an attitude towards life and declaration of the way the believer will go about living. Interpreting it strictly as an empirical statement is to ignore the whole surroundings within which the belief was formed and given meaning.
Okay, and how is this not special pleading?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis View Post
Given this, your criticism is too limited to address the normal reasons for believing that a normal Christian might have, and for some people it may not address any of their reasons at all. It also would mean that belief in Christianity does not require a position of ignorance, since knowledge of evidence does not come into play.
Wow.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis View Post
My main point, however, was that I only disagreed with Skinwalker over his use of "superstitious" as a necessary component to Christianity. I'm sure the two coexist quite well most places.
Per my arguments above, I maintain that you might be missing the point. The argument is not that superstition is a necessary component of christianity. The argument is that christianity is itself superstition. There is no duality to separate and contemplate individually.

Again, I am open to seeing arguments to the contrary, but in the mean time I maintain that if you attempt to remove the superstition from christianity you will find that there is nothing left after you are finished (you may have some nice stories promoting secular humanism, but that's it).

Thanks for the interesting discussion, Mr. Dravis.

Last edited by Achilles; 07-26-2009 at 01:20 PM. Reason: spellin'
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-26-2009, 02:28 PM   #67
Samuel Dravis
 
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
I guess I'm still not seeing it.

Christians believe that jesus was the son of god, born of a virgin, who died for our sins and was resurrected after three day to ascend into heaven.

That part alone hits every single branch on the way down out of the superstition tree.
I'm not sure you've quite understood the point I was trying to get across. Those are religious concepts, but not necessarily superstitious ones. As per my definition, they do not arise from fear, misunderstanding of biology, etc. They are taught to a person and incorporated into their lives, like any other cultural phenomenon.

One can believe in the virgin birth without being superstitious because it is taught to one as something given. --Well, is it possible that you could have a virgin birth? But that was never in question; it happened, and that's that. Sort of like criticizing Zeus' ability to fire lightning bolts by saying, "No one can do that; it's ridiculous to even think about it." You'd have missed the point at any rate.

Quote:
Well certainly there are all manner of things that I cannot rule out. We have yet to observe omnipotence or omniscience in nature. That doesn't mean that they don't exist. But that also means that we don't have good reasons to think that they do.

So if one were to suggest that we should accept those claims without observing them in nature, then they must remain supernatural constructs until such time that we can move them into the "natural" column.

And, obviously, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim in the mean time.
I have absolutely no clue what "evidence for the omnipotence" of God in nature is supposed to mean. There is a religious mythology which includes a God which can do anything it wants, i.e, omnipotence. The closest thing I can come to within that religion is the existence of the universe - often a favorite among theologians - but that is obviously not scientific evidence of any sort. But this sort of investigation is the wrong direction to look in.

God is often said, for example, in Psalms to be almighty. There's a tendency to take this at face value, though, which would be simply wrong. Reading the whole of Psalms, you discover it is a book of praise from ancient times, similar to how a supplicant might address their Emperor. "Oh almighty Caesar, with such purply robes and esteemed forehead...."

And we're to take such a thing as if it were to mean that Caesar is an omnipotent being? Not only that, but we want to find evidence for the hypothesis that Caesar is an omnipotent being? You see my point.

Incidentally, St. Anselm was guilty of this exact mistake when he formulated his ontological argument. The Psalms were written long enough before he came around that he was able to pass over (accidentally, I'm sure) what was actually being said in them and create metaphysics where there was none.

Quote:
As per above, I'm still not seeing it.

Locomotion is rampant throughout the animal kingdom. Many species are capable of bi-pedal locomotion. There is a naturalistic explanation for why it is that you can walk, run, waltz, tango, break-dance, etc. Surely it is amazing in the same way that our opposable thumbs allow us to efficiently utilize tools. You are right to say there is nothing "unnatural" here.

But where is the rationale for omnipotence? Where do we see vestigial parts in the evolutionary chain of history? We don't. It's...supernatural. One "being" alone allegedly possesses this trait (depending on who you ask) and we have absolutely zero evidence that any of it is true.

You're saying that christians don't have to believe in the supernatural to be christians. My question is, how in the heck can you still call them christians if you take away all the christian doctrine? What is left?
You're treating Christianity as if it were something other than what it is: religious teaching. I'm sure you know how people come to believe in it as well as I do. Why equate that with information gleaned from more modern rationalistic methodologies?

There are two ways to treat any subject of knowledge. Either you can look at it subjectively, i.e, in this case through the eyes of the believer, or objectively, i.e., study what causes people to say what they do in order to understand what it means for them to say it.

You ask what the rationale is for God's omnipotence. Here's the objective treatment: that's how it is in Christianity. You can poke around and find reasons why this is so from a nearly unlimited supply of theologians, the influence of Aristotle on Christian thought in the middle ages, interpretations of Biblical passages, from the history of the Jewish people and their religion, from how their culture was in antiquity and how it changed through time.

Now compare this with your "looking for evidence of omnipotence". You're interested in getting to the truth of the matter, undoubtedly. But if that's so, then your questions should not ignore your knowledge of modern-day religion as a long-running historical and sociological phenomenon. Doing so would be similar to making the mistake Anselm did: extracting a word from natural discourse and divorcing it completely from the original context, and then becoming confused at why it was so hard to justify.

I agree with you completely that Christians believe in the supernatural. I just don't see that belief in the supernatural entails superstition. Modern Christianity has changed so much - I'm sure others would say, "insulated itself against criticism" - that belief in it does not necessitate belief in magic or what-have-you. The common idea that "nothing bad can ever really happen to me as long as I believe in God" is not contradicted by getting into a car accident.

Quote:
Surely an omnipotent being would be able to do something to convince you, Mr. Dravis. Even my skepticism doesn't go that far.
I'm sure it could persuade me. But it couldn't prove to me that it was God, in the sense that doubt would be logically excluded. Once you start proving/giving evidence for things, doubt always enters the equation as a matter of conceptual necessity in English.

Quote:
I understand but these are all horrible reasons for belief. They are understandable reasons, but that doesn't excuse that they are horrible reasons.
Horrible reasons for what? Yes, they're quite horrible reasons for believing in something. Touchyfeely nonsense, that would be. But my point with those paragraphs was that a religious conviction does not necessarily arise from reasoning, nor is it necessarily dependent upon reasoning. It's just something that people do.

Quote:
As such, I direct you back to your own source:

"a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation"

Unless I'm missing something, christianity is superstition per your source and your argument above.
My personal experience with being Christian when I was younger fit none of the above. I was taught religion, that's it.

Quote:
Okay, and how is this not special pleading?
I did give you reasons not to consider religion and religious statements as if they were some sort of science. Just the way both ideas are learned should demonstrate that they're obviously not.

Quote:
Wow.


Quote:
Per my arguments above, I maintain that you might be missing the point. The argument is not that superstition is a necessary component of christianity. The argument is that christianity is itself superstition. Their is no duality to separate and contemplate individually.
Okay, I'm just trying to make this clear again: I am not, and have not, attempted to argue that all of Christianity is unsuperstitious.

I merely disagreed with the label of superstition for Christianity because a social practice is not necessarily superstitious, even if it includes supernatural elements. I attempted to show how this is possible by giving you a different idea of how people "learn" their religion, or are converted into it. The reasons people may enter into a religion may not fit the definition of being superstitious. They do not have to be ignorant of science or logic, they do not have to be afraid of the unknown, they do not have to trust in magic or chance, they do not have to have a wrongheaded idea of causation-- and they can still accept something like Christianity. Why? Because it is not necessarily a replacement for the other ideas we may already have. It's a way to live your life-- something additional.

People accept these mythological stories and they provide background and direction to their lives. They don't necessarily expect those beliefs to come to any actual difference between the course of their life and that of an atheist's.

Quote:
Again, I am open to seeing arguments to the contrary, but in the mean time I maintain that if you attempt to remove the superstition from christianity you will find that there is nothing left after you are finished (you may have some nice stories promoting securlar humanism, but that's it).

Thanks for the interesting discussion, Mr. Dravis.
I'm not interested in removing the supernatural from Christianity, I'm merely pointing out that belief in Christianity is not necessarily superstition. Thanks to you, also.


"Words are deeds." - Wittgenstein
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-26-2009, 04:28 PM   #68
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis View Post
I'm not sure you've quite understood the point I was trying to get across. Those are religious concepts, but not necessarily superstitious ones.
And my argument is that there is no difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis View Post
As per my definition, they do not arise from fear, misunderstanding of biology, etc.
Per my earlier post the former is not a requirement. Regarding the latter, it might not "arise" from such a misunderstanding, but the misunderstanding is there, nonetheless. Your source mentions nothing about having to be derived from misunderstanding, only that erroneous belief is present.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis View Post
They are taught to a person and incorporated into their lives, like any other cultural phenomenon.
And that's fine, so long as you aren't positing that people cannot be taught to be superstitious. I suspect that our difference here is that you believe that someone has to be aware that what they believe is superstition in order for it to be so and I do not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis View Post
One can believe in the virgin birth without being superstitious because it is taught to one as something given. --Well, is it possible that you could have a virgin birth? But that was never in question; it happened, and that's that. Sort of like criticizing Zeus' ability to fire lightning bolts by saying, "No one can do that; it's ridiculous to even think about it." You'd have missed the point at any rate.
See above. Having been indoctrinated into a belief does not mean that the belief is not superstition. All it means is that people can be indoctrinated into superstitious belief.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis View Post
I have absolutely no clue what "evidence for the omnipotence" of God in nature is supposed to mean.
Unless I misunderstood your point, the argument was that god's omnipotence is as natural as your being able to walk. My point is that if you look at the animal kingdom one would expect to find locomotion and would not be surprised to see bi-pedal locomotion because it's everywhere. There is nothing exceptional (in the literal usage) about it.

Omnipotence on the other hand is another matter entirely. Therefore I find the comparison erroneous and the argument fallacious.

Again, if I am missing something, please let me know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis View Post
There is a religious mythology which includes a God which can do anything it wants, i.e, omnipotence. The closest thing I can come to within that religion is the existence of the universe - often a favorite among theologians - but that is obviously not scientific evidence of any sort. But this sort of investigation is the wrong direction to look in.

God is often said, for example, in Psalms to be almighty. There's a tendency to take this at face value, though, which would be simply wrong. Reading the whole of Psalms, you discover it is a book of praise from ancient times, similar to how a supplicant might address their Emperor. "Oh almighty Caesar, with such purply robes and esteemed forehead...."

And we're to take such a thing as if it were to mean that Caesar is an omnipotent being? Not only that, but we want to find evidence for the hypothesis that Caesar is an omnipotent being? You see my point.

Incidentally, St. Anselm was guilty of this exact mistake when he formulated his ontological argument. The Psalms were written long enough before he came around that he was able to pass over (accidentally, I'm sure) what was actually being said in them and create metaphysics where there was none.
No doubt that you and I could go on all day about how christian doctrine came to be what it is today. My concern is not how we got here, but what we can determine about the claims (and doctrine) we see today.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis View Post
You're treating Christianity as if it were something other than what it is: religious teaching. I'm sure you know how people come to believe in it as well as I do. Why equate that with information gleaned from more modern rationalistic methodologies?
With regards to your first point, you are absolutely correct. I am treating christianity as a series of claims about history and nature. Furthermore I am positing that those claims are superstitious in nature. I thought that's what we were discussing

With regards to your question: I pit these claims against modern rationalistic methodologies because adherents not only insist that these claims still have relevence, but that they are superior to all others. In other words, I do it because they ask me to

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis View Post
There are two ways to treat any subject of knowledge. Either you can look at it subjectively, i.e, in this case through the eyes of the believer, or objectively, i.e., study what causes people to say what they do in order to understand what it means for them to say it.

You ask what the rationale is for God's omnipotence. Here's the objective treatment: that's how it is in Christianity. You can poke around and find reasons why this is so from a nearly unlimited supply of theologians, the influence of Aristotle on Christian thought in the middle ages, interpretations of Biblical passages, from the history of the Jewish people and their religion, from how their culture was in antiquity and how it changed through time.

Now compare this with your "looking for evidence of omnipotence". You're interested in getting to the truth of the matter, undoubtedly. But if that's so, then your questions should not ignore your knowledge of modern-day religion as a long-running historical and sociological phenomenon. Doing so would be similar to making the mistake Anselm did: extracting a word from natural discourse and divorcing it completely from the original context, and then becoming confused at why it was so hard to justify.
The claims that we are dancing around are not historical claims, sir. They are made right here and now. Every day.

Beliefs have consequences and we either have good reasons for the things that we believe or we do not. We can talk all day about how people tricked, duped, or indoctrinated into believing things for bad reasons, but that won't magically make them good ones.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis View Post
I agree with you completely that Christians believe in the supernatural. I just don't see that belief in the supernatural entails superstition.
And perhaps this puts us at an impasse.

Per your own source:

Quote:
an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
Tell me what's rational about christian doctrine and I will (hopefully) be able to see your point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis View Post
I'm sure it could persuade me. But it couldn't prove to me that it was God, in the sense that doubt would be logically excluded. Once you start proving/giving evidence for things, doubt always enters the equation as a matter of conceptual necessity in English.
Again, I'm pretty sure that a truly omnipotent being would be able to find a way. I may or may not lack the imagination to know what that would look like, but I'm pretty sure I'll never have to worry about it either, so...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis View Post
Okay, I'm just trying to make this clear again: I am not, and have not, attempted to argue that all of Christianity is unsuperstitious.
Okay.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis View Post
I merely disagreed with the label of superstition for Christianity because a social practice is not necessarily superstitious, even if it includes supernatural elements.
And I disagree. I think we both agree that social practices are not inherently superstitious. I also think we both agree that social practices can be superstitious.

I think that christianity definitely is a social practice that is superstitious. Your counter-argument (as I have understood it thus far) has been "well, many of them don't know that it's superstition, therefore it's not superstitious". My rebuttal is that it does not matter.

This is where I think we are right now. Please let me know if you see it differently.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis View Post
They do not have to be ignorant of science or logic, they do not have to be afraid of the unknown, they do not have to trust in magic or chance, they do not have to have a wrongheaded idea of causation--
But christian doctrine is all of these things.

Pick any claim put forth by christian doctrine and it will meet one (or more) of these criteria. That the person accepting the claim is aware of this or not is irrelevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis View Post
Thanks to you, also.
My pleasure. I am looking forward to your response.

Last edited by Achilles; 07-26-2009 at 06:43 PM.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-29-2009, 02:20 AM   #69
Samuel Dravis
 
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
And my argument is that there is no difference.
Okay.

Quote:
But christian doctrine is all of these things.
See below.

Quote:
Per my earlier post the former is not a requirement. Regarding the latter, it might not "arise" from such a misunderstanding, but the misunderstanding is there, nonetheless. Your source mentions nothing about having to be derived from misunderstanding, only that erroneous belief is present.
I was just demonstrating that it did not fit the first definition. As for the second definition, I'm not convinced one can call it a misunderstanding (or erroneous) if the belief does not necessarily entail the possibility of "steering one wrong".

For example, if the belief that a spell will protect you from physical harm leads you (or will lead you) to hurt yourself, that belief was superstitious (def. 1). But modern Christianity entails no such necessary gamble. As I said previously, the belief that "nothing can really harm you if you believe in God" is not a conditional belief; there exist no criteria that determine it one way or another. I don't believe the concept of truth even applies to such a statement. If it is not a true or false belief, what is it then? It's just there, previous to considerations of whether it's useful/helpful/good for X objective or not. It's a learned behavior, similar to how saying "my foot hurts" replaces cradling and pointing to your foot.

When one appeals to the rationality of a belief, it's necessary that there be an objective. For example, if you wanted your fence to be colored green, it'd be rational to go about doing things which would effect that purpose. Things like buying paint, brushes, going outside, putting the brush in the bucket and such would be rational in light of the objective. Taking an axe to the fence would be irrational.

Now, suppose you say that religion is necessarily irrational (by definition superstition is irrational belief). But the question then arises: to what purpose are we to think that religion is directed towards? As you state in your post, you believe it is to provide historical truths (and I acknowledge that many people believe this).

However, I don't believe that religion has an objective in this sense; or if it does, then the objective is itself. The stated end of their belief, for most Christians, is to live with God forever. Some things that align with this belief is the practice of following certain rules, like the Ten Commandments and various New Testament passages. But in what sense are these people who do these things "living with" anyone, or getting closer to anyone, or seriously entertaining the thought of living forever? No Christian I know of thinks that he will not die in the conventional sense. Everyone expects that. And yet, he asserts he will not die, that others have not died, etc. The reality of his physical death doesn't diminish his belief in the slightest.

So what is left, if not even the powerful image of death can overcome his conviction? What is left cannot be an opinion, because opinions involve the possibility of being wrong. But that is logically excluded: as per the above paragraph, there is no criterion that would demonstrate the belief's wrongness. The only event that could have disproven it - death itself - has been shown to be irrelevant to the belief. What is left is not the result of ratiocination, but neither is it irrational. It's just a fact of human life, a fact of nature. It is these facts alone which I am saying cannot be superstition.

Obviously such beliefs are open to criticism from other vectors. You raised, in my opinion, the most important one: the fact that beliefs have consequences in the way people live their lives. This is, I believe, what Nietzsche criticized in Christianity-- the consequences of its "slave morality", i.e., the moral code that enabled the weak to punish the strong. This is a legitimate criticism, but it requires that the reader be persuaded that such a revaluation of morals is necessary. One can easily imagine a new atheist, recently convinced of the "death of god" - to put it in Nietzsche's terms - might be willing to begin such a task. Most would not, however; I myself see little wrong with the current state of affairs, but maybe that's just because I'm not the Ubermensch Nietzsche was talking about.

I read the other day about how a combination of sex deprivation among young Muslim men due to societal pressures and the belief in the whole 72-virgin-afterlife thing made them significantly more likely to be suicide bombers than anyone else. Naturally I don't think there's any truth to their belief in the virgins (though I don't think it's not true), but I am more than willing to argue that the consequences of that belief are extremely bad for everyone involved. Fortunately most people are inclined to believe that killing people is evil.

Quote:
No doubt that you and I could go on all day about how christian doctrine came to be what it is today. My concern is not how we got here, but what we can determine about the claims (and doctrine) we see today.
My point in all of this talk of history of Christianity was to show that the things said by Christianity are not necessarily claims about the nature of the world, even if they are couched in the terms common to such claims. As in my responses above, they might not even qualify as opinions, depending on how they're held. And that's the only thing I've tried to say: that some - not all, perhaps not even very many - Christians do not hold superstitious beliefs.

Naturally I wish to avoid things like the genetic fallacy. In this case I am not saying that the origin of these religious beliefs changes their current truth value; I am saying that their current truth value (or lack thereof) can only be evaluated through the social practices within which they exist-- and a look at the history of the phenomena helps bring this out.

Quote:
And that's fine, so long as you aren't positing that people cannot be taught to be superstitious. I suspect that our difference here is that you believe that someone has to be aware that what they believe is superstition in order for it to be so and I do not.
I agree with you completely that people can be taught to be superstitious.

My belief in this case is that I think that in order to be superstition, a belief has to fit all, some, or any of the concepts classed under "superstition". For convenience I offered the M-W.com definition. Obviously I don't think that Christianity necessary utilizes those concepts, and so I don't think that Christianity is necessarily superstitious.

Quote:
See above. Having been indoctrinated into a believe does not mean that the belief is not superstition. All it means is that people can be indoctrinated into superstitious belief.
You're right; indoctrination has nothing to do with whether a belief is superstition or not. I looked at the definition of "superstition" to find clarity on the matter in the first place.

Quote:
Unless I misunderstood your point, the argument was that god's omnipotence is as natural as your being able to walk. My point is that if you look at the animal kingdom one would expect to find locomotion and would not be surprised to see bi-pedal locomotion because it's everywhere. There is nothing exceptional (in the literal usage) about it.

Omnipotence on the other hand is another matter entirely. Therefore I find the comparison erroneous and the argument fallacious.
I'm not sure why one would expect to find in nature omniscience, unless you were to include religious practices in "nature." God's omnipotence is entirely natural given the sort of being he is in the framework of the religions that describe him. This was what the analogy with walking was supposed to exemplify. Obviously even the most perfect analogy will not hold in every possible case, but that's just the nature of analogy for you; it's not the same as the thing it describes.

Quote:
With regards to your question: I pit these claims against modern rationalistic methodologies because adherents not only insist that these claims still have relevence, but that they are superior to all others. In other words, I do it because they ask me to
All right, that's perfectly acceptable, and I leave them to your able criticism. However, merely because some Christians try this approach does not mean all must, implicitly or explicitly.

Quote:
Tell me what's rational about christian doctrine and I will (hopefully) be able to see your point.
Nothing's rational about it (at least not the subset I'm interested in). Belief in, e.g., the virgin birth is not the product of ratiocination.

There may be subsets in which theologians argue about one idea or another using logic and what-have-you, but the acceptance of those ideas, those "mysteries" is fundamentally not rational.

I realize that it's typical for something which is not rational to seem as if it were irrational, bad, or somehow lacking in rationality that it needs in order to be respectable. This is simply a metaphysical prejudice carried over from dualistic thinkers who held that (untenably) the mind was superior, or at least separate from, the body. Curiously enough, Christianity has been fighting such teachings at least since the Manichean heresy, roughly AD 387. Modern analytic philosophy has been trying to rid itself of dualistic ways of thinking for at least 70 years now; it's a lot harder than it sounds. Many ideas which seem very significant, like Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" (everyone loves that, I know), solipsism, and any other radically subjective ideas must be abandoned completely.

Quote:
Again, I'm pretty sure that a truly omnipotent being would be able to find a way. I may or may not lack the imagination to know what that would look like, but I'm pretty sure I'll never have to worry about it either, so...
I'm pretty sure I'll never have to worry about it either. Every bit of history and philosophy I know shows that "God" is a term only with use inside of a sociological practice. I have absolutely zero reason to hold the opinion that there exists extrasensory beings of any kind-- and I don't.


"Words are deeds." - Wittgenstein
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-29-2009, 10:42 AM   #70
Jan Gaarni
Grand Moff
 
Jan Gaarni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,806
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
For example, if the belief that a spell will protect you from physical harm leads you (or will lead you) to hurt yourself, that belief was superstitious (def. 1).
I'm just gonna add a Yes and No to that example as being superstition.

Yes, it would be superstition.
and
No, superstition does not require someone getting hurt, you or others, for it to be superstition.

Quote:
So what is left, if not even the powerful image of death can overcome his conviction? What is left cannot be an opinion, because opinions involve the possibility of being wrong. But that is logically excluded: as per the above paragraph, there is no criterion that would demonstrate the belief's wrongness. The only event that could have disproven it - death itself - has been shown to be irrelevant to the belief. What is left is not the result of ratiocination, but neither is it irrational. It's just a fact of human life, a fact of nature. It is these facts alone which I am saying cannot be superstition.
I may very well have understood this incorrectly, but here we go.

The facts are, we are born, we grow (hopefully) and we die.
That's it. Those are the facts. Noone in their right minds can dispute this. It's an every day occurance.

And the only 100 prosent truth in this world, is that everyone will one day die.


As for dictionaries, I usually use dictionary.com myself: Superstition

Quote:
I read the other day about how a combination of sex deprivation among young Muslim men due to societal pressures and the belief in the whole 72-virgin-afterlife thing made them significantly more likely to be suicide bombers than anyone else. Naturally I don't think there's any truth to their belief in the virgins (though I don't think it's not true), but I am more than willing to argue that the consequences of that belief are extremely bad for everyone involved. Fortunately most people are inclined to believe that killing people is evil.
I wonder if it specifically says female virgins myself.




Empire At War Moderator
&
SWGalaxies Moderator

- What we do in life, echoes in eternity!
- May the pants be with you!

A smile is the shortest distance between people - Victor Borge!


Custom Avatar by Wraith 8

Last edited by Jan Gaarni; 07-29-2009 at 11:04 AM.
Jan Gaarni is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-29-2009, 11:12 AM   #71
Samuel Dravis
 
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan Gaarni View Post
I'm just gonna add a Yes and No to that example as being superstition.

Yes, it would be superstition.
and
No, superstition does not require someone getting hurt, you or others, for it to be superstition.
Well, the "getting hurt" bit was specific to my example, and it wasn't only that one must get hurt, but that one could.


Quote:
I may very well have understood this incorrectly, but here we go.

The facts are, we are born, we grow (hopefully) and we die.
That's it. Those are the facts. Noone in their right minds can dispute this. It's an every day occurance.

And the only 100 prosent truth in this world, is that everyone will one day die.
I'm not so sure I'd be willing to eliminate psychological and evolutionary states of humanity from the category of facts of nature.

Quote:
I wonder if it specifically says female virgins myself.
Well-- I'm sure there's been a lot of, er, scholarly research on the subject.


"Words are deeds." - Wittgenstein

Last edited by Samuel Dravis; 07-29-2009 at 12:47 PM.
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-29-2009, 02:07 PM   #72
Darth_Yuthura
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Vienna
Posts: 1,585
Current Game: KOTOR III
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
WASHINGTON — A California Republican congressman wants to do a little writing on the walls of Washington's newest federal building. If Rep. Dan Lungren gets his way, Congress will spend nearly $100,000 to engrave the words "In God We Trust " and the Pledge of Allegiance in prominent spots at the Capitol Visitor Center.
In a time when we are in an economic crisis, spending taxpayer's money on something so insignificant as carving a quote is foolish. That alone should defeat the motion, but if there are people who would be offended by it; then all the more reason NOT to do it. They are public spaces and should not be carved up with public funding.

It is clearly stated that state and religion must be kept separate. In some cases it's not true, but this should be followed to keep the barrier between these two from being breached.
Darth_Yuthura is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-29-2009, 04:30 PM   #73
Jan Gaarni
Grand Moff
 
Jan Gaarni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,806
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis View Post
I'm not so sure I'd be willing to eliminate psychological and evolutionary states of humanity from the category of facts of nature.
That may very well be the case, but as of today, it's not fact. It's still in the fictional category, only displayed in shows like Star Trek in the form of Q, or the Ancients in Stargate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis View Post
Well-- I'm sure there's been a lot of, er, scholarly research on the subject.
I can picture it now. Some dude just enters heaven after a suicide bombing:
"Are those my virgins?"
"Yeah, why?"
"There's some ugly ass guys in here!"






Empire At War Moderator
&
SWGalaxies Moderator

- What we do in life, echoes in eternity!
- May the pants be with you!

A smile is the shortest distance between people - Victor Borge!


Custom Avatar by Wraith 8
Jan Gaarni is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-29-2009, 04:57 PM   #74
Kylilin
Wiseass
 
Kylilin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Fairfield, CT
Posts: 2,306
Current Game: Skyrim
Forum Veteran 
Am I the only one here who thinks that there are bigger fish to fry than worrying about what's carved on a wall? I think Californians should worry more about saving their state from going broke.

Personally, although I am no fan of the Christian right or organized religion for that matter, I couldn't care less if "In God We Trust" was displayed on or in a government building.


"Who is splendid among men, who is glorious among heroes?"
--excerpt from Gilgamesh
Kylilin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-29-2009, 04:58 PM   #75
Samuel Dravis
 
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan Gaarni View Post
That may very well be the case, but as of today, it's not fact. It's still in the fictional category, only displayed in shows like Star Trek in the form of Q, or the Ancients in Stargate.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. My intention was to show that some religious practices are simply natural results of the sort of creature human beings are. Much like if I, when angry, throw something on the ground. It's not that I expect anything to change because I do this-- it's just something that I do. It makes me feel better, true, but that's not why I do it. The best explanation I have is that such behavior is instinctual. So you see why I'm having difficulty understanding what you mean by saying it's fictional; I don't think that the practice of a religion rises from a belief, but that the two develop concurrently.

Of interest to this idea is this essay by Anscombe, particularly section I.

Obviously the idea that there exist some sort of invisible beings is flawed (I remarked there wasn't any reason to believe in such things), but that's not what I was interested in.

Quote:
I can picture it now. Some dude just enters heaven after a suicide bombing:
"Are those my virgins?"
"Yeah, why?"
"There's some ugly ass guys in here!"




"Words are deeds." - Wittgenstein
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-29-2009, 11:38 PM   #76
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
I think Family Guy said it best with regard to 72 virgins:



A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-30-2009, 03:02 AM   #77
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis View Post
I was just demonstrating that it did not fit the first definition. As for the second definition, I'm not convinced one can call it a misunderstanding (or erroneous) if the belief does not necessarily entail the possibility of "steering one wrong".
But religion (christianity specifically because that's the topic) does entail this possibility.

Which points of christian doctrine do we have any evidence for? If we have no good reasons for thinking that any of them are correct, then it stands to reason that every single one of them "necessarily entail the possibility of 'steering one wrong'".

If I accept the story of the virgin birth, either through childhood indoctrination or a momentary lapse of skepticism, then unless there are good reasons for accpeting this story, I have been "steered wrong". Granted the virgin birth is a very risk for me. Accepting it probably won't be the end of the world. But what about when we start getting into the heavier stuff like accepting jesus as being the only way to avoid eternal torment in a lake of fire? None of this sounds like superstition to you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis View Post
For example, if the belief that a spell will protect you from physical harm leads you (or will lead you) to hurt yourself, that belief was superstitious (def. 1). But modern Christianity entails no such necessary gamble.
Apologies, Samuel. I don't see the whole "accepting jesus as your personal savior" (and all it's repercussions) as being anything other than such a gamble.

That your example entails a physical body which is known to a exist and mine involves a non-physical soul which the believer believes exists seems irrelevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis View Post
It is these facts alone which I am saying cannot be superstition.
And again, I think this sounds like special pleading. Claims should be tested. If claims cannot be tested, they should not be accepted. And claims that are accepted without good reasons would certainly seem to invoke the first definition of superstition, per your source.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis View Post
My point in all of this talk of history of Christianity was to show that the things said by Christianity are not necessarily claims about the nature of the world, even if they are couched in the terms common to such claims.
I guess I would be interested in knowing how you think we should distinguish between claims and things that couched in terms common to claims?

"jesus was a man, born of a virgin, and the son of god who lived ~2,000 year ago in the Middle East" sounds like a claim. It sounds like a very specific claim. It does not matter that the original claim made very different proclamations thousands of years ago when first uttered by human lips, it is the claim made today.

"Bobby stood on the street corner, wearing a blue shirt" and "Bobby stood on the street corner, wearing a blue shirt with purple shorts" are two separate claims. Even if we were to verify the first claim, it doesn't make the second claim is automatically true (in whole) also.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis View Post
And that's the only thing I've tried to say: that some - not all, perhaps not even very many - Christians do not hold superstitious beliefs.
My test remains as it was before: show me a single rational component to christian doctrine and I will hopefully be able to see your point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis View Post
In this case I am not saying that the origin of these religious beliefs changes their current truth value; I am saying that their current truth value (or lack thereof) can only be evaluated through the social practices within which they exist-- and a look at the history of the phenomena helps bring this out.
And I don't see how this is anything other than special pleading. These beliefs should be subject to the same tests and consideration as any other belief. I have yet to see a good argument for exception.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis View Post
God's omnipotence is entirely natural given the sort of being he is in the framework of the religions that describe him.
This reasoning seems circular. It is natural to consider god to be omnipotent because that's how we should expect god to be. Please help me understand what I'm misunderstanding.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis View Post
However, merely because some Christians try this approach does not mean all must, implicitly or explicitly.
This goes back to a point I tried to raise earlier. All christians adhere to some part of christian doctrine. Otherwise their just humanists. I don't see how anyone taking on the mantle of "christian" can escape unscaythed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis View Post
I realize that it's typical for something which is not rational to seem as if it were irrational, bad, or somehow lacking in rationality that it needs in order to be respectable. This is simply a metaphysical prejudice carried over from dualistic thinkers who held that (untenably) the mind was superior, or at least separate from, the body. Curiously enough, Christianity has been fighting such teachings at least since the Manichean heresy, roughly AD 387. Modern analytic philosophy has been trying to rid itself of dualistic ways of thinking for at least 70 years now; it's a lot harder than it sounds. Many ideas which seem very significant, like Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" (everyone loves that, I know), solipsism, and any other radically subjective ideas must be abandoned completely.
I think this confuses "dualism" and "dichotomy". I think you and I have discussed dualism in the past, and hopefully you'll recall that I don't accept it. However that doesn't mean that trying to frame things in a "rational vs. irrational" dichotomy is also intellectually bankrupt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kylilin View Post
Am I the only one here who thinks that there are bigger fish to fry than worrying about what's carved on a wall? I think Californians should worry more about saving their state from going broke.
Indeed, the list of things more important than this is long and wide. If Dan Lungren wasn't lobbying to get his religious sentiments permanently etched onto a goverment building with taxpayer money, there probably wouldn't be very much to discuss, would there?

I think you are right. Clearly someone has their priorities mixed up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kylilin View Post
Personally, although I am no fan of the Christian right or organized religion for that matter, I couldn't care less if "In God We Trust" was displayed on or in a government building.
And that's your right. Hopefully you won't begrudge those of us who have a right to care.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-30-2009, 10:58 AM   #78
Jan Gaarni
Grand Moff
 
Jan Gaarni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,806
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis View Post
I'm not sure what you mean by this. My intention was to show that some religious practices are simply natural results of the sort of creature human beings are. Much like if I, when angry, throw something on the ground. It's not that I expect anything to change because I do this-- it's just something that I do. It makes me feel better, true, but that's not why I do it. The best explanation I have is that such behavior is instinctual. So you see why I'm having difficulty understanding what you mean by saying it's fictional; I don't think that the practice of a religion rises from a belief, but that the two develop concurrently.

Of interest to this idea is this essay by Anscombe, particularly section I.

Obviously the idea that there exist some sort of invisible beings is flawed (I remarked there wasn't any reason to believe in such things), but that's not what I was interested in.
I had to re-read the passage again, because, like I said, I could have understood it wrong.
And I think I understand what you ment there now. Although, the way it was written sounded like you were stating that a persons body would die but his soul would live on was a fact of nature.




Empire At War Moderator
&
SWGalaxies Moderator

- What we do in life, echoes in eternity!
- May the pants be with you!

A smile is the shortest distance between people - Victor Borge!


Custom Avatar by Wraith 8
Jan Gaarni is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-09-2009, 05:21 PM   #79
Darth_Yuthura
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Vienna
Posts: 1,585
Current Game: KOTOR III
Well this thread should be considered dead, but I'm going to revitalize it because I saw some interesting statements I wanted to comment on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
Which points of christian doctrine do we have any evidence for? If we have no good reasons for thinking that any of them are correct, then it stands to reason that every single one of them "necessarily entail the possibility of 'steering one wrong'".
Does this have to with people not believing in god being the reason not to carve 'in god we trust' in a government building, or is it because there are others who have different beliefs? If this state is meant to be a melting pot, then such words essentially paint everyone as believers of god... even if they're not.

My quarrel isn't so much in a slogan that doesn't apply to me, but because believing in god isn't important enough to make an issue of it. I would be satisfied if some hooligan just spray-painted the words on the building and they just left it alone. If they squander government funding and carve the words, then I don't care at that point... the mistake was already made.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
Apologies, Samuel. I don't see the whole "accepting jesus as your personal savior" (and all it's repercussions) as being anything other than such a gamble.

And again, I think this sounds like special pleading. Claims should be tested. If claims cannot be tested, they should not be accepted. And claims that are accepted without good reasons would certainly seem to invoke the first definition of superstition, per your source.
Exactly. Faith is something that people can have to their selves, but it is not meant to be an excuse for people to act without the need for proof. If you wish to have your faith respected, then you must not attempt to force it upon others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post

My test remains as it was before: show me a single rational component to christian doctrine and I will hopefully be able to see your point.

And I don't see how this is anything other than special pleading. These beliefs should be subject to the same tests and consideration as any other belief. I have yet to see a good argument for exception.

This reasoning seems circular. It is natural to consider god to be omnipotent because that's how we should expect god to be. Please help me understand what I'm misunderstanding.
A very good point that I keep trying to emphasize, but is always taken as 'atheist prejudice.' When you introduce an omnipotent being into any equation, then it essentially makes everything else moot. If god can do anything, then you essentially can answer every question with 'god did it.' That would make just as much sense as evolution, creationism, heaven, hell, everything.

It all hinges upon one small, but critical factor... it is usually accompanied by the presence of a god. You cannot use the existence of the universe as proof in itself, because no one can prove beyond a doubt that god was responsible for all that.

-------

I really don't care one way or another if someone wants to put religious words on a government building, provided that they do it with private funding. Once they use public funding for something so insignificant as religious words and detract from more important issues, you defile everything that those words are supposed to represent. Spending all the money in suing the state and wasting that money on carving those words speaks volumes on the reasons why religion should be kept out government priorities.

Last edited by Darth_Yuthura; 08-09-2009 at 05:27 PM.
Darth_Yuthura is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-10-2009, 02:18 PM   #80
EnderWiggin
Sine Amore Nihil Est Vita
 
EnderWiggin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,395
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
I really don't care one way or another if someone wants to put religious words on a government building, provided that they do it with private funding. Once they use public funding for something so insignificant as religious words and detract from more important issues, you defile everything that those words are supposed to represent.



So you'd be alright with it if I paid for "In God We Trust" on a government building?

_EW_



Hello, Pot? This is Kettle. You're black. ~ Prime

Yes, I hate you.

J7 - thanks for accepting me as part of the 'family.'
EnderWiggin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > JediKnight Series > Community > Senate Chambers > Atheists sue to keep 'In God We Trust' off Capitol Visitor Center

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:02 PM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.