The Grand DesignFollow

Oh, ********* Tired, sloppy ********* You can say "Merry Christmas" without offending 99% of the people you encounter. Hell, you can say it in July and people won't be offended.

Wanting the government to adhere to Constitutional repudiation of a state religion is not at all the same as an attack on Christianity, or on religion in general.

So, yes, I say that most people, most of the time, are perfectly willing to live and let live vis-a-vis religious beliefs.

Ah, but Alma wasn't talking about the US. He was talking about Korea, specifically.

Or something.

Which is far more than you've given during any of your senseless, idiotic tirades. Yeah, GFY.

Well, you certainly don't live and let live. That much is clear. Cnut.

Well, again, those changes are not demanded by most people but by a minority. A small minority. And Christmas is hardly the only official government holiday, so I'm not gonna respond to that because I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Also, Christmas was first established as a legal holiday in the same act of Congress that established as holidays: July 4th, Thanksgiving, and New Year's Day. It is an established holiday celebrated by the majority of the U.S. population, and is not at all representative of the government officially endorsing (and certainly not mandating) a specific religion.

Edited, Sep 10th 2010 8:06am by BrownDuck

It's live and let live when they all live the way Alma wants them to Belkira. Try and keep up.

No one said you don't have a point. Just that it's not a very good one, or very well thought out.

It's even illogical, really.

Yes, because that's the only point that really matters. Not these elusive "changes" you keep talking about, and my point about not forcing children to pray in school is more "Live and let live" than forcing them to pray ever would be.

and thus:



Remember, Allegory is claiming that even when there is NO overlap, this is still the case.

Just thought I would put all of Allegories thoughts in one place.

I have no hope for Allegory, but for the rest of you, the simple solution is that as a scientist, you would not assume that *every* thought you have is scientific. Thus you have the method. It checks itself: if ultimately your theory disagrees with experiment, it is wrong - regardless of how you came up with it. It is just a happy coincidence that you can get as much done as humans have with as many imperfect thoughts occurring in our brains.

It would be the opposite of science to assume you had perfectly scientific thoughts.

It's amazing how often such horrible headlines get past the desks of editors at major media outlets and the frequency with which they just happen to give impressions which favor positions and ideas held by liberals. One might start to suspect it's either deliberate, or just so habitual that those doing it don't even notice anymore.

If all the rednecks in the south use the N-word every time they are talking about a black person, the fact that this might just be a habit, or something they think is just clever slang, doesn't change the fact that black folks might just see the practice as an "attack" on them. Same deal here.

That's a flawed conclusion and also an incorrect statement.

The situation is similar to saying one cannot be good at math, play roulette, and expect to statistically win at the same time.

-If I'm good at math then I know the probabilities for roulette don't favor me, but I can still play roulette and be good at math simultaneously; I know I'm going to lose.
-I can still play roulette and expect to statistically win, but that would mean I calculated the probabilities wrong; I'm bad at math.
-I can also be good at math and expect to statistically win, but I'll have to go play some other game like blackjack where it's possible to come out ahead.

I can be any two of the possibilities simultaneously, but I can never be all three simultaneously.

An intelligent person is capable of seeing the flaws and inconsistencies of religion, but chooses to ignore them for some other reason. Even if you know Heaven can't exist, you can still choose to believe a lie to sate your fears about death. A child may know monsters aren't real, but it still can feel good to hide under the covers, as irrational as that may be. People lie to themselves; it's not that uncommon.

The pick two statement is primarily intended to be humorous and as such is not fully correct in it's wording, but the idea behind it is.

Edited, Sep 10th 2010 8:22pm by Allegory

The logic you are using can be valid, but isn't in this case. You are describing states of being, not actions or results. Defining characteristics, if they are not exclusionary individually, can't be said to be logically exclusionary when combined. If it's possible to be "female and intelligent" and "female and attractive", and "attractive and intelligent", it must also be possible to be "female and intelligent and attractive".

Arguing otherwise is often done as a joke, but doesn't actually work logically.



Yes. Because those are not all defining characteristics. Being "good at math" is. But "playing roulette" is an action, and "expecting to win" is a belief. You're conflating some very very different concepts in order to contrive support for an illogical statement.



Again, examine the logic in terms of identity characteristics. Can you come up with an example where something "is" something else (it includes that characteristic as part of its identity) where your logical arrangement actually works. I don't think it's possible, but feel free to try.



Or doesn't believe there are any. You're assuming that "intelligent" means "doesn't believe that religious beliefs are true". Obviously, if that is your true definition, and we assume that "religious" means "believes that religious beliefs are true" then the real issue is that you have two contradictory characteristics. You can't be both "intelligent" and "religious" in your formulation. So it's not about picking two, it's about not being able to be both religious and intelligent at the same time.



No, you can't. You may choose to act as though you do, but that's not the same as believing it yourself.



Now you're conflating intellect and emotion though.



Which was kinda my point. Just as with the attractive intelligent woman example I gave. It's a cheap bit of humor which plays on stereotypes. I get the joke, but let's not give it extra weight than that, ok? And when we're in a topic about examining the fairness or unfairness of said stereotypes, it's sorta less than useful, isn't it?