Proposed Law Would Tax Video Games

[The Red]

Just way too much in this thread to reply to...

On the religious point:

First of all, theres a reason why people agree that religion is behind so much violence throughout history... the root cause though, is not any specific religion, but ignorance prescribed under the guise of faith.

For example:

#1: Convincing people that there are people lesser than them and sub-human based on faith, place of birth, sexual orientation, skin color, or personal choices that dont affect anyone but the person themselves (ie: abortion). Generally used for the purposes of justification of homicide, genocide, enslavement, conversion, or simply to create an "other" to utilize and unite under hatred and scape-goat-ism, otherwise known as condemnation.

#2: Convincing people that religion contains more truth than visual, measurable, or substantiated facts. (ie: world is flat, evolution is not real, earth is only a couple thousand years old, the world was made in X ammount of days, etc...)

#3: Convincing people to exist in a depressive, self-hating state for things that are outside of their control. (ie: original sin, being attracted to the same sex, being sexually active with more than one partner, exo-marital procreation, exhibiting attraction to persons maritally "spoken for". ) The depiction of such behaviors as animalistic is not wrong, because we are, in fact, animals... we eat, sleep, and procreate.. and when we are not doing such things, we covet for more eating, sleeping, and procreating...


On the tax point:

Taxes are inescapable ... unless you're wealthy enough to understand tax shelters. The reason the senator targets video games is because he's convinced that the strategy that worked on alcohol and tobacco will work on video games. In that, he wants to portray video-games as vice and the industry as the scapegoat to the vice in the age group they produce for. This is prohibition era logic.

#1: ALL Govt loves taxes, Dem or Repub is irrelevant, it provides financing for their projects, capital for themselves, bankrolls expensive policy (ie: war on drugs or extremists) and lets them keep the system intact.

#2: Saying that Democrats like taxes and Republicans dont is ignorance to the highest extent. Both like taxes. What sets the Republicans appart are the people they cater to. The current republican administration remove taxation on inheritance, lowered taxation on corporate profits and accumulated wealth, lowered taxation on the wealthiest 15% of the population and recently is trying to approve funding for the housing crisis caused by their own inflation which was caused by their own over-spending... it is a sick cycle ensured by over-spending and cutting off of social programs to pay for the war.

#3: The only administrations I have ever seen to leave office with a substantial, if any, of a surplus have been democratic administrations in the largest majority. I have heard the ignorant comments on how people try and credit republican administrations before the democratic ones on the surpluses, and they all fall flat on the fact that when you ask yourself why the ruling democratic administration DOESN'T SPEND the surplus they are sitting on when they easily could have, that argument flies out the window.

 

[w1retap]

lmao, where did all this religious crap come from?

 

[Azhar]

lmao, where did all this religious crap come from?

it's being debated that religion (encouraged by the government and people alike) causes more violence than video games (and other entertainment medium) put together. The government is looking at the wrong cause of violence.

 

[w1retap]

The first amendment guarantees freedom to practice whatever religion you want. It isn't going away. Null point, can't argue it. Religion isn't causing violence. It is whacko people that interpret religion in their own way and use it for violent reasons. They have a problem in their head somewhere.

Now video games on the other hand can make children desensitized and develop different mental interpretations of violent situations. That is if they can't distinguish from reality easily, which if you have poor parenting and start children on violent video games from an early age, it can certainly happen and there's no question about it.

But there are more instances of violence other than religion and video games. Religion and video game violence is pretty rare compared to gang violence, drug related violence, domestic abuse, etc. An exception might be the growing radical muslim influence we are seeing. Most are fundamentalists that still live like they're in the stone age, so they are very ignorant and don't know any different or weren't taught any different.

 

[Cinge]

The first amendment guarantees freedom to practice whatever religion you want. It isn't going away. Null point, can't argue it. Religion isn't causing violence. It is whacko people that interpret religion in their own way and use it for violent reasons. They have a problem in their head somewhere.

Now video games on the other hand can make children desensitized and develop different mental interpretations of violent situations. That is if they can't distinguish from reality easily, which if you have poor parenting and start children on violent video games from an early age, it can certainly happen and there's no question about it.

But there are more instances of violence other than religion and video games. Religion and video game violence is pretty rare compared to gang violence, drug related violence, domestic abuse, etc. An exception might be the growing radical muslim influence we are seeing. Most are fundamentalists that still live like they're in the stone age, so they are very ignorant and don't know any different or weren't taught any different.

Exactly.

I see it as not a video game problem, but a bad parent problem.

 

[The Red]

The first amendment guarantees freedom to practice whatever religion you want. It isn't going away. Null point, can't argue it. Religion isn't causing violence. It is whacko people that interpret religion in their own way and use it for violent reasons. They have a problem in their head somewhere.

Now video games on the other hand can make children desensitized and develop different mental interpretations of violent situations. That is if they can't distinguish from reality easily, which if you have poor parenting and start children on violent video games from an early age, it can certainly happen and there's no question about it.

But there are more instances of violence other than religion and video games. Religion and video game violence is pretty rare compared to gang violence, drug related violence, domestic abuse, etc. An exception might be the growing radical muslim influence we are seeing. Most are fundamentalists that still live like they're in the stone age, so they are very ignorant and don't know any different or weren't taught any different.

It is not just the parent... it takes a village...

Religion taught through family is the first point where a child is taught that those somehow "lesser" than him / her exist, the concept of "others" is introduced and inferiority is implied. As one is later exposed to countless images of death and destruction (fake or real) via media and entertainment, one attaches feelings of expendability to people, this conflicts with the child's destruction-less up-bringing and justifications are sought by the child... and the only justification presented is that people worth destroying, persecuting, and abusing are the "others" that he/she has been taught were inferior since being introduced to the concept through his / her religion.

This is prescribed on a national level as well, dehumanizing those who do not share in your nation's political allegiances. It is the same concept all dictators have used for ages.

How many remember the McCarthy era where you believed russians were inhuman, communists were not real people, atheists deserved to die, and that somehow killing one was more justifiable than killing a deer. And you wonder where this lack of humanity comes from? look into yourselves. It should be well noted that during that era, religion pushed this belief as much if not more than government to contrast the Soviet state-sponsored-atheism. Human life didnt take presidence when our government decided to support and supply the dictatorships, fascist governments, terrorist groups, and brutal abuse of humanity by our "anti-communist" allies such as Sheng Kai-Shek (Taiwan), Shah of Iran (Iran), Saddam Husein (Iraq, during Iran - Iraq war), The Contras (Nicaragua), Batista (Cuba), AUC (Columbia), Osama Bin Laden (Afghanistan, during Soviet occupation), Augusto Pinochet (Chile)... and the list goes on. We supported these monstrous dictators and groups because we dehumanized the people on the other side, as if they were animals for the slaughter.

Blaming the gaming industry or media is pointless... people have learned of "others" through plays, stories, legends, religion, media, entertainment, books, cave paintings..etc.. for centuries and generations... it takes a method to convince and lead to justify the dehumanization of such "others"... in our generation, that method comes in two forms... Religion and Government.

Video games may help desensitize, but they are by far not the only source, as real violence is much more prevalent every time you turn on the TV. This societal desensitization and "othering" only aids the already anti-social behaviors of disturbed individuals, providing justification is TOO EASY when we provide justification for the murder of millions abroad on our television screens EVERY DAY.

 

[HOCP4ME]

it's being debated that religion (encouraged by the government and people alike)

I have to LOL at that. There's something in the First Amendment called the Establishment Clause that specifically prohibits government encouragement of religion. Over the past fifty years, that clause has been enforced to the strictest extent possible. Prayer has been removed from public schools, the Pledge has been made involuntary because it has the word "God" in it, Ten Commandments displays have been removed...etc.

Good or bad? As a Christian who believes we should not force our religion on other people, I think it is good as long as it does not become excessive. But saying the government encourages religion is rediculous. There is a big difference between the government allowing religion (which is also in the First Amendment, as it should be, and for which I will leave the country if it is ever eliminated) and government encouraging religion (which is prohibited).

Oh, and saying that religion is bad because it causes violence is just as stupid as saying video games are bad because they cause violence. You may say that religion has caused violence in the past, which is true. However, it is also true that video games have caused violence in the past. It is rare, but many studies have shown that kids sometimes imitate their video games and get in trouble by doing so.

You can also say that the problem isn't with video games but with parents for not dsiciplining their kids. It's the same thing with religion. If parents actually tought religion to their kids in the right way, rather than telling them that non-believers are below them and subhuman (which is actually a direct contradiction to many of Jesus' teachings in the Bible), they probably wouldn't be violent in the name of God.

 

[w1retap]

Everyone is hypocritical.

 

[watertown28]

I have to LOL at that. There's something in the First Amendment called the Establishment Clause that specifically prohibits government encouragement of religion. Over the past fifty years, that clause has been enforced to the strictest extent possible. Prayer has been removed from public schools, the Pledge has been made involuntary because it has the word "God" in it, Ten Commandments displays have been removed...etc.

Good or bad? As a Christian who believes we should not force our religion on other people, I think it is good as long as it does not become excessive. But saying the government encourages religion is rediculous. There is a big difference between the government allowing religion (which is also in the First Amendment, as it should be, and for which I will leave the country if it is ever eliminated) and government encouraging religion (which is prohibited).

Oh, and saying that religion is bad because it causes violence is just as stupid as saying video games are bad because they cause violence. You may say that religion has caused violence in the past, which is true. However, it is also true that video games have caused violence in the past. It is rare, but many studies have shown that kids sometimes imitate their video games and get in trouble by doing so.

You can also say that the problem isn't with video games but with parents for not dsiciplining their kids. It's the same thing with religion. If parents actually tought religion to their kids in the right way, rather than telling them that non-believers are below them and subhuman (which is actually a direct contradiction to many of Jesus' teachings in the Bible), they probably wouldn't be violent in the name of God.

I have to say though That it all comes down to the parents getting their sticks out of their butts and teaching kids what is right or wrong and being responsible! I mean Look at cartoons now for an example. Who remembers the road runner cartoons? I remember an outcry about how it was teaching kids that no matter how violent the death of coyote was that he always came back, and that was showing kids that if they hurt someone like that that they would just come back... it was something along those lines. I have not seen one cartoon of that from that day on which saddens me cuz well I watched em and you know what? i dont hurt people as I am sure 99% of the other people dont also.

What it comes to people are just not willing to take the blame for any actions anymore. Teach your kids what is right and wrong. its as simple as that.

 

[Big D.]

So having social programs that don't work is a great way to spend our tax money

I belive in working for what you want. not having the government give it to you cause your to damn lazy to get off your ass...

So do I, which is why I have a job and an education, but my point was when you spend TRILLIONS of dollars on wars with no plan on winning, you most likely can afford just about anything else too if you really wanna get it done. No sense in making new taxes. Then again, they didn't even help the people in New Orleans when they needed it so I don't see the American government doing anything useful with their tons of money until the next president takes over.

 

[HOCP4ME]

I have to say though That it all comes down to the parents getting their sticks out of their butts and teaching kids what is right or wrong and being responsible! I mean Look at cartoons now for an example. Who remembers the road runner cartoons? I remember an outcry about how it was teaching kids that no matter how violent the death of coyote was that he always came back, and that was showing kids that if they hurt someone like that that they would just come back... it was something along those lines. I have not seen one cartoon of that from that day on which saddens me cuz well I watched em and you know what? i dont hurt people as I am sure 99% of the other people dont also.

What it comes to people are just not willing to take the blame for any actions anymore. Teach your kids what is right and wrong. its as simple as that.

Oh, I completely agree with you. I was just trying to show why religion is not a direct cause of violence. I would also argue any day that video games are not a direct cause of violence. It's just that this thread was about video games causing violence, and most people thought that was absurd (including me), so I compared that to the apparently widespread (on this forum) opinion that religion is responsible for violence.

 

[HOCP4ME]

Then again, they didn't even help the people in New Orleans when they needed it so I don't see the American government doing anything useful with their tons of money until the next president takes over.

They sent $52 billion to complement billions more in private donations. Unfortunately, some greedy distributors stole most of the money and were inefficient at handing out the rest of it. Many of them were arrested for it, too.

Please don't even try to blame that on anyone other than the criminal distributors themselves. Once again, we come to a scapegoating situation here. Are you going to blame the actions of a few corrupt individuals on President Bush and/or the Republican Party? If so, you are just as guilty as this Wisconsin senator who blames teen violence on video games.

 

[w1retap]

lol, we're onto talking about New Orleans? More like they needed a mayor to lead them out before the storm. Does Florida need the president to tell them to leave every hurricane? In New Orleans they had a 72+ hour warning that the hurricane was coming straight for them, and everyone knows most the city is below sea level. Nagin was ignorant and sat on his hands while the hurricane came in. He could have been moving people out by the bus loads and staging the national guard days beforehand. Instead he went back to his roots and "blamed the man". Typical.

 

[nilepez]

lol, we're onto talking about New Orleans? More like they needed a mayor to lead them out before the storm. Does Florida need the president to tell them to leave every hurricane? In New Orleans they had a 72+ hour warning that the hurricane was coming straight for them, and everyone knows most the city is below sea level. Nagin was ignorant and sat on his hands while the hurricane came in. He could have been moving people out by the bus loads and staging the national guard days beforehand. Instead he went back to his roots and "blamed the man". Typical.

Gotta say on this one you're clueless.

Do you REALLY think that people are going to evacuate everytime a CAT 3+ storm might hit (and 3 or 4 days out almost any gulf storm could hit NOLA....or it could hit tampa, Galveston or Corpus).

I lived in new orleans for 10 years. Most never evacuated. Most of the time people tape up the windows, buy a lots of booze, get drunk and watch the news. Most of the time, you got, at most, a heavy rain storm. Often, it was a light rain.

What would you suggest he have done? Should he change that to a mandatory evacuation? What, you think that people that didn't leave when an evac was called for are suddenly going to leave?

Sorry bud, but it wouldn't have happened. It will now (for a while), but not in 2005.

It'll end, when we've gone through 10 or 20 years of busing people to some other city without anything more than a few flooded streets.

Nagin may not have handled the aftermath as well as he could have (I can't think of anyone who did), but there's no way he could convinced all those people who refused to leave to pack up and go, because they either feared there houses would be robbed if they did, or they didn't believe anything would happen, because nothing had for 40+ years.

 

[w1retap]

When the mind is weak, the body suffers.

 

[w1retap]

56 hours out they knew it was coming in the general vicinity of New Orleans. And when the storm was 19 hour out, Blanco and Nagin DID order a mandatory evacuation, but they did nothing. The buses sat empty in parking lots. You at least move out the people you can and are willing. There are many accounts of people that wanted to leave but couldn't because they didn't have transportation.

 

[c.d.e]

I have to LOL at that. There's something in the First Amendment called the Establishment Clause that specifically prohibits government encouragement of religion. Over the past fifty years, that clause has been enforced to the strictest extent possible. Prayer has been removed from public schools, the Pledge has been made involuntary because it has the word "God" in it, Ten Commandments displays have been removed...etc.

Uhh, the Pledge didn't have Under God TILL about 50 years ago....

 

[The Red]

I have to LOL at that. There's something in the First Amendment called the Establishment Clause that specifically prohibits government encouragement of religion. Over the past fifty years, that clause has been enforced to the strictest extent possible. Prayer has been removed from public schools, the Pledge has been made involuntary because it has the word "God" in it, Ten Commandments displays have been removed...etc.

Good or bad? As a Christian who believes we should not force our religion on other people, I think it is good as long as it does not become excessive. But saying the government encourages religion is rediculous. There is a big difference between the government allowing religion (which is also in the First Amendment, as it should be, and for which I will leave the country if it is ever eliminated) and government encouraging religion (which is prohibited).

Oh, and saying that religion is bad because it causes violence is just as stupid as saying video games are bad because they cause violence. You may say that religion has caused violence in the past, which is true. However, it is also true that video games have caused violence in the past. It is rare, but many studies have shown that kids sometimes imitate their video games and get in trouble by doing so.

You can also say that the problem isn't with video games but with parents for not dsiciplining their kids. It's the same thing with religion. If parents actually tought religion to their kids in the right way, rather than telling them that non-believers are below them and subhuman (which is actually a direct contradiction to many of Jesus' teachings in the Bible), they probably wouldn't be violent in the name of God.

Ok... theres a few problems here...

#1: As a "Christian who believes we should not force our religion on other people" would you find yourself voting for a non-religious senator / president / mayor or do you expect your spiritual leaders to make the decision for you regardless of how effective the candidate is. On the flipside, at the same time, would you be expected to vote for an individual who is running but IS christian yet is an obviously inexperienced candidate who pushes the religious vote.

#2: "You may say that religion has caused violence in the past, which is true. However, it is also true that video games have caused violence in the past." This is one of the worst comparisons I have ever seen... Video games imitate a fantasy method of killing and desensitize through repetition... Religion, gives Means, Motive, Method, Justification, Support, and Threat to self if not obeyed... Video games are responsible for kids acting out their methods and most of the time hurting someone accidentally, Religion is responsible for Jihad, Genocide, Crusades, Inquisition, inter-religious murder (Suhi - Shi, Protestant - Catholic), and WHOLESALE Condemnation and justification for sub-human treatment of people based on creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, nationality, and personal choices that affect no-one but the individual... not to mention those who suffered for fictional offenses like witchcraft and idol worship. You simply CANNOT compare Video games and Religion as being similar offending forces..

#3: "If parents actually tought religion to their kids in the right way, rather than telling them that non-believers are below them and subhuman (which is actually a direct contradiction to many of Jesus' teachings in the Bible), they probably wouldn't be violent in the name of God." How is it possible to tell someone that he / she should be of X religion without stating in the same sentence why he / she should not be Y or Z religion and then following it up by faith-based-reasoning? If someone truly picks religion X, I dont see a way for him / her to not condemn and believe Y or Z inferior, or worse, condemned and doomed to already suffer (in the style of whatever Hell the religion implies). Religion but itself implies that whatever religion it is, it is SUPERIOR to OTHER Faiths, but worse, it implies it is superior to all the people it deems as "condemned / heretics / nonbelievers" ... you cant separate that from religion, otherwise the believers dont feel chosen and dont stay. What, are you going to tell the child that he/she is of a certain religion but that religion has to higher truth or benefit over another religion or none at all?

 

[w1retap]

I've been around Christians and other religious people my whole life and they've never forced religion on me before.

 

[Cinge]

As far as the New Orleans thing. Not a single person can whine about what happened. If you put yourself in the path of danger, expect to get caught up in it when nature DOES strike. It's no different than the people living along the coast of Florida or in mudslide and earthquake zones. They KNOW it's dangerous but, they CHOOSE to put them and their family in danger anyway and then act all surprised and whine about it when it does happen and expects the taxpayers to bail them out every time. Then they turn around and build right back in the same stupid place again and then expect us to bail them out again. People know when they are in a dangerous area. They could have moved away from the city, out of the BELOW SEA LEVEL bowl they were living in. People can move away from the shoreline that's in the path of most hurricanes. People make a choice but then want others to pay for their stupidity. I say build a wall around the French Quarter are and turn the rest over to the lake. I say if you want my taxes to help you pay for your stupidity, then the government now owns that property and you go build where it's safe. Get insurance and stop using the taxpayers as insurance.

As far as the kids learning bad stuff from. I still say that kids that act out, are going ot act out no matter what. It's always going to be something that causes them to do whatever. It's not the games themselves or religion or anything. I would say most of it is just bad parenting, not teaching their kids the value of life, or any values period. If it's not video games they are going ot act out on, it's movies. If it's not movies, it's other kids. If it's not other kids, it's going to be something. It's the same way with the radical religious people. If it wasn't religion, it would be something else to use to justify their actions. People just use what's convenient.

 

[Cinge]

Also, a note about the parents teaching their children religion properly. You are right. I was brought up in a Christian home but, I don't think anyone that believes differently is any better or worst than me. We are given a choice and free will by God. No MAN has a right to take that away and force their beliefs on anyone. I judge a person by how they are and how they treat others, not by their religion. People use religion as a way to justify their actions. It doesn't make religion bad or those that practice it bad. Of course, I am going to be closer to those of the same belief as I am though.

 

[Cinge]

Nagin was an idiot and those people were stupid enough to re-elect him. They deserve whatever they get from now on. I can't believe they re-elected someone that got hundreds of people dead and then they blamed it on the Feds. All that mess was the city and state's fault. The state told the Feds they couldn't go in until it was too late.

 

[HOCP4ME]

Uhh, the Pledge didn't have Under God TILL about 50 years ago....

Yes, and ever since then, God has been progressively removed from government.

Ok... theres a few problems here...

#1: As a "Christian who believes we should not force our religion on other people" would you find yourself voting for a non-religious senator / president / mayor or do you expect your spiritual leaders to make the decision for you regardless of how effective the candidate is. On the flipside, at the same time, would you be expected to vote for an individual who is running but IS christian yet is an obviously inexperienced candidate who pushes the religious vote.

No and no. I wouldn't vote for a stupid person based on his religion. For example, I wouldn't vote for Bush again despite the fact that he's a Christian because I don't think he is running the country effectively.

#3: "If parents actually tought religion to their kids in the right way, rather than telling them that non-believers are below them and subhuman (which is actually a direct contradiction to many of Jesus' teachings in the Bible), they probably wouldn't be violent in the name of God." How is it possible to tell someone that he / she should be of X religion without stating in the same sentence why he / she should not be Y or Z religion and then following it up by faith-based-reasoning? If someone truly picks religion X, I dont see a way for him / her to not condemn and believe Y or Z inferior, or worse, condemned and doomed to already suffer (in the style of whatever Hell the religion implies). Religion but itself implies that whatever religion it is, it is SUPERIOR to OTHER Faiths, but worse, it implies it is superior to all the people it deems as "condemned / heretics / nonbelievers" ... you cant separate that from religion, otherwise the believers dont feel chosen and dont stay. What, are you going to tell the child that he/she is of a certain religion but that religion has to higher truth or benefit over another religion or none at all?

You say that religion teaches people to consider other people of different religious beliefs as inferior to them. Well, I'm going to presume you're an atheist. As an atheist, you think you're right and I'm wrong (obviously), so you therefore think I am inferior to you. You apparently think I'm supporting a belief system that causes unfounded death, prejudice, and violence and is responsible for many horrible historical events. You, as someone who does not support such a system, must think I, as someone who does support it, am inferior to you in my contributions to society. I am continuing to ensure an oppressive institution continues to exist, while you are refusing to support it.

My point? Two people who disagree about something will always consider each other inferior by some amount. The mere thought that you are right and someone else is wrong implies inferiority. Atheists consider religious people to be inferior to them (from less intelligent and less open-minded to oppressive and inhumane) just as followers of a certain religion consider the followers of other religions to be inferior. What really matters is whether someone condemns others and commits violent acts because of their differences. Such violence is not condoned in the Bible (I don't know about other religions) and is therefore the responsiblity of the individual.

And please do not reply with "I don't think you're wrong, we just think differently". "Thinks differently" is the definition of "wrong" and you wouldn't spend so much time arguing about something that you didn't care about.

 

[Worldhammer]

I've been around Christians and other religious people my whole life and they've never forced religion on me before.

Omg, omfg.
I have to run these fuckin people from my front door on a weekly basis after they ignore the no soliciting religious or otherwise sign on my door.

Last time it was guy standing there with a six year old kid saying right in front of him. "We could go out today and get hit and killed in the road but it would be okay cause we've yes to jesus!"

Yeah that kid never had anything forced on him. All the choices in the world!

Mayors still dont explain 5 days, and "you're doing a great job Brownie!"

 

[w1retap]

lol, I wish exciting stuff like that would happen where I live.

 

[HOCP4ME]

Last time it was guy standing there with a six year old kid saying right in front of him. "We could go out today and get hit and killed in the road but it would be okay cause we've yes to jesus!"

Lol, what are parents supposed to do? Give their child a Bible, Koran, Torah, and a set of Vedas and tell him "okay now, you read these and decide which religion you want to believe in"? There's nothing wrong with parents teaching their children religion just as there's nothing wrong with parents teaching their children other things they believe to be true such as manners, safety, and responsibility.

 

[Azhar]

Lol, what are parents supposed to do? Give their child a Bible, Koran, Torah, and a set of Vedas and tell him "okay now, you read these and decide which religion you want to believe in"? There's nothing wrong with parents teaching their children religion just as there's nothing wrong with parents teaching their children other things they believe to be true such as manners, safety, and responsibility.

Exactly! It works in the Middle East!

Wait...

 

[The Red]

Yes, and ever since then, God has been progressively removed from government.



No and no. I wouldn't vote for a stupid person based on his religion. For example, I wouldn't vote for Bush again despite the fact that he's a Christian because I don't think he is running the country effectively.



You say that religion teaches people to consider other people of different religious beliefs as inferior to them. Well, I'm going to presume you're an atheist. As an atheist, you think you're right and I'm wrong (obviously), so you therefore think I am inferior to you. You apparently think I'm supporting a belief system that causes unfounded death, prejudice, and violence and is responsible for many horrible historical events. You, as someone who does not support such a system, must think I, as someone who does support it, am inferior to you in my contributions to society. I am continuing to ensure an oppressive institution continues to exist, while you are refusing to support it.

My point? Two people who disagree about something will always consider each other inferior by some amount. The mere thought that you are right and someone else is wrong implies inferiority. Atheists consider religious people to be inferior to them (from less intelligent and less open-minded to oppressive and inhumane) just as followers of a certain religion consider the followers of other religions to be inferior. What really matters is whether someone condemns others and commits violent acts because of their differences. Such violence is not condoned in the Bible (I don't know about other religions) and is therefore the responsiblity of the individual.

And please do not reply with "I don't think you're wrong, we just think differently". "Thinks differently" is the definition of "wrong" and you wouldn't spend so much time arguing about something that you didn't care about.

I dont seek to placate you like those who would like to blindly believe (have faith) and ignore all evidence out of fear of not having that crutch. As you're describing in your last paragraph. Those kind of argument endings are for people want to live "an unexamined life" as Socrates put it. I hope I dont need to tell you the second half of his statement. So, you're wrong.

I'm actually agnostic, I believe anyone who says they can interpret divine will or know for sure there isnt one is fooling themselves. I understand all religions to be a product of primal fear of the unknown and a product of people not wanting to admit simply that "they didnt know" the answer to something. I find atheism to be the reaction of someone who is able to disprove one religion or another entirely, yet leaving no room for the un-interpretable. To establish either, both refuse to admit the flaws and limits of man to truly comprehend either possibility.

However, there is one VERY big difference within the motives of the Religious vs. Non-Religious... Religion seeks to propagate its own existence, and thus to propagate the notion that ALL else is lesser than itself.... while non-religious movements seek to put EVERYONE on Equal ground.

 

[farfromhome]

#3: "If parents actually tought religion to their kids in the right way, rather than telling them that non-believers are below them and subhuman (which is actually a direct contradiction to many of Jesus' teachings in the Bible), they probably wouldn't be violent in the name of God." How is it possible to tell someone that he / she should be of X religion without stating in the same sentence why he / she should not be Y or Z religion and then following it up by faith-based-reasoning? If someone truly picks religion X, I dont see a way for him / her to not condemn and believe Y or Z inferior, or worse, condemned and doomed to already suffer (in the style of whatever Hell the religion implies). Religion but itself implies that whatever religion it is, it is SUPERIOR to OTHER Faiths, but worse, it implies it is superior to all the people it deems as "condemned / heretics / nonbelievers" ... you cant separate that from religion, otherwise the believers dont feel chosen and dont stay. What, are you going to tell the child that he/she is of a certain religion but that religion has no higher truth or benefit over another religion or none at all?

No, but I know plenty of people who are of one religion, but believe that there's an element of truth in all major religions. Think of the blind men and the elephant. Now, those that believe in a higher power probably wouldn't see any truth in Atheism, but that's different from saying that "believers" in Atheism are bad. Just like a Macolyte may belittle Windows and Linux to high-heaven (pun intended), but not see users of said operating systems as inferior in any way whatsoever.

Furthermore, you are lumping all religions together. Christianity and Islam are the only two religions I know of that not only believe that they have the truth, but that something bad will happen to those that don't believe. Despite that, more liberal sects of those religions have eschewed that belief. Even the other major Western religion, Judaism, doesn't condemn non-believers in any way (unless you happen to be following a child-sacrificing cult or old-style idol worshiping, which isn't really done these days). It just cares that you follow basic moral precepts. Most Eastern religions make no claim of being the only ones with the truth, and indeed some people can be, say, Buddhist and Shinto together. Heck, some people are Buddhist and Jewish at the same time.

However, there is one VERY big difference within the motives of the Religious vs. Non-Religious... Religion seeks to propagate its own existence, and thus to propagate the notion that ALL else is lesser than itself.... while non-religious movements seek to put EVERYONE on Equal ground.

There are some militant Athiests that are very much the equal of some religionists in terms of looking down on people that believe differently. One does not have to search very hard to find that on the 'net to find that. And on the other hand, most people that believe in a religion put everybody else on equal ground just fine. It's just those that don't that make the most noise.

 

[Manny Calavera]

Yes, and ever since then, God has been progressively removed from government.

It seems the exact opposite is happening now with W in office.As far as religion goes,I think its all dangerous,and has no place in government in any way.

Too bad thats not the reality here.And how did we get so far off base on this ?

I hope this nut is voted out of office come the next election.This whole scam is insane,
video games have nothing to do with what he wants to 'help'

It to me is like puting a new tax on apples in the state of NY to help famine victims in Samalia,its so ass backwards its not even funny,they have nothing in common.

 

[nilepez]

There are some militant Athiests that are very much the equal of some religionists in terms of looking down on people that believe differently. One does not have to search very hard to find that on the 'net to find that. And on the other hand, most people that believe in a religion put everybody else on equal ground just fine. It's just those that don't that make the most noise.

I tend to think that Atheism is a religion. Agnosticism is not. Atheists seem to get as easily offended by religion as religious groups are by alleged slights of said religion or the lack of religion in certain areas.

I think it was in Roger Ebert's most recent Answer Man column that someone said they were offended by the religious message in I Am Legend and wondered if he could start including a warning about religious content in future reviews. While I didn't particularly think that aspect of the movie worked (and generally thought it was just so-so), I certainly wasn't offended. Hell, I like U2, and almost everything Bono writes is either about God or his wife, and my favorite Genesis song is Supper's Ready a 20 minute trip through revelations (I think).

I'm not sure if there's a god or not, but I'm fairly certain that many (all?) are seriously flawed.

I still don't get how God is perfect, created the universe (and everything in it), is all good and knows all (past, present future) and yet Evil exists. By the transitive property that means god created Evil, which means at least one of the premises is false, which ultimately means either God is fallible or God is not as good as we're told.....nevermind the question of where god came from (and always was and always will be is cheating).

 

[Manny Calavera]

Dr. Paul is against undeclared war.
To quote him from 2003, just before the war:
"Only tyrants can take a nation to war without the consent of the people. Invading Iraq without a declaration of war is illegal and unwise because of the many unforeseen consequences that are likely to result...
Victory under these circumstances is always elusive, and unintended conseqences are inevitable."

We've never won an undeclared war, and we can't force democracy on another country with the Army. After Cuba, Korea, and Vietnam you would think we would have learned by now.

To avoid totally derailing this thread, I'll just say that if you're a conservative minded person who supports the war I wish you would read what Ron Paul's saying before you write him off as a "nutjob." Or at least read his wikipedia entry.
He supports personal freedom, smaller federal government, lower taxes, a strong dollar/economy, and a friendly non-interventionist (but not isolationist) foreign policy. A very similar platform to what Bush ran on in 2000, except Ron Paul has supported these views for over 30 years.

Thats the one area where he is dead wrong,it('the war') has nothing to do with bringing democracy into Iraq,and everything to do with lining the coffers of the Cheneys and Haliburtons,and private armies of the world.

Its about greed and black gold and private agendas,and little else.


Background :

I have been voting conservative at all levels since 1989.Since 1994 I have been a card carrying member and supporter of the Reform Party,and now the Conservative Party Of Canada.I was born in the US,in NY State,but live and study,and work in Canada curently.

 

[Manny Calavera]

I tend to think that Atheism is a religion. Agnosticism is not. Atheists seem to get as easily offended by religion as religious groups are by alleged slights of said religion or the lack of religion in certain areas.

I think it was in Roger Ebert's most recent Answer Man column that someone said they were offended by the religious message in I Am Legend and wondered if he could start including a warning about religious content in future reviews. While I didn't particularly think that aspect of the movie worked (and generally thought it was just so-so), I certainly wasn't offended. Hell, I like U2, and almost everything Bono writes is either about God or his wife, and my favorite Genesis song is Supper's Ready a 20 minute trip through revelations (I think).

I'm not sure if there's a god or not, but I'm fairly certain that many (all?) are seriously flawed.

I still don't get how God is perfect, created the universe (and everything in it), is all good and knows all (past, present future) and yet Evil exists. By the transitive property that means god created Evil, which means at least one of the premises is false, which ultimately means either God is fallible or God is not as good as we're told.....nevermind the question of where god came from (and always was and always will be is cheating).

I highly,highly suggest you read,(or listen to the great audio book versions)
of 'Conversations With God'

Even if you dont beleive that Walsch talked with God,it wont matter,as it all just makes a lots of sense.Its changed my perspective on almost everything.

 

[farfromhome]

I still don't get how God is perfect, created the universe (and everything in it), is all good and knows all (past, present future) and yet Evil exists. By the transitive property that means god created Evil, which means at least one of the premises is false, which ultimately means either God is fallible or God is not as good as we're told....

Well, nobody has the answer to those kinds of questions, and everybody that claims to either has lots of hubris or is trying to sell you something. My own answer is that without Evil, how could we truly choose Good? It wouldn't really be free will anymore, and free will is mankind's greatest gift. Not only that, but we wouldn't be able to appreciate the Good if there was no Evil to contrast it against. So the Evil that exists is deliberate, but we, as fallible humans who are nevertheless created in the image of the divine, have the power (and responsibility) to try to do Good and minimize the Evil that exists in the world. There ya go, take it or leave it.

 

[nilepez]

Yes, and ever since then, God has been progressively removed from government.

We can stick to what the founding fathers intended (isn't that what social conservatives frequently preach?)

Here's a few quotes:

Thomas Jefferson

"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." Thomas Jefferson

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."
​

John Adams

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses. "​

How about James Madison:

"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."

​

 

[nilepez]

Well, nobody has the answer to those kinds of questions, and everybody that claims to either has lots of hubris or is trying to sell you something. My own answer is that without Evil, how could we truly choose Good? It wouldn't really be free will anymore, and free will is mankind's greatest gift. Not only that, but we wouldn't be able to appreciate the Good if there was no Evil to contrast it against. So the Evil that exists is deliberate, but we, as fallible humans who are nevertheless created in the image of the divine, have the power (and responsibility) to try to do Good and minimize the Evil that exists in the world. There ya go, take it or leave it.

That's simple: God created man and gave him the choice, but created him such that he always chose to do good.

If no person ever killed another person, does that mean that they couldn't do it? Of course not. It'd simply mean nobody ever chose to do that.

The other alternative is that God doesn't care. After all, how can God be upset about killing, Gay sex, gay marriage, Muslims, Hindus (or whatever religions are the wrong ones) when he created the everything and knew, before he ever did so, exactly how things would turn out for every single one of us?

That's like me writing a program with code that will erase my HD on the 29th of February and getting upset that the computer did exactly what I told it to do.

If god knows all, he knew what Manson would turn out like. he knew Hitler would kill millions of Jews. He knew Dahmer would eat other people.

So even if there's free will, the results of each choice were known to god billions of years ago.

 

[farfromhome]

That's like me writing a program with code that will erase my HD on the 29th of February and getting upset that the computer did exactly what I told it to do.

If god knows all, he knew what Manson would turn out like. he knew Hitler would kill millions of Jews. He knew Dahmer would eat other people.

So even if there's free will, the results of each choice were known to god billions of years ago.

It's a very interesting question. Like I said before, there's no definitive or simple answer to these kinds of issues. My own take again: you can't compare writing a computer program with creating the Universe. Actually, I'd go even further than you. He knew Dahmer would eat other people billions of years ago, and he will know billions of years from now. He isn't stuck with the linear progression of time like the rest of us. He knew that some people would choose to be bad. He knew that some people would be choose to be very bad. But it's worth it for a creation that can truly act on its own volition. If God swooped down and meted out judgment every time somebody did something bad, again buh-bye truly free will (who would do bad things if they knew with absolute certainty that they'd be punished?).

The other alternative is that God doesn't care. After all, how can God be upset about killing, Gay sex, gay marriage, Muslims, Hindus (or whatever religions are the wrong ones) when he created the everything and knew, before he ever did so, exactly how things would turn out for every single one of us?

Other than the killing (which I don't see any culture in the world, religious or not, approving of), don't mistake fallible human religion and politics with what God really cares about. Not that any of us really know, but I simply cannot imagine petty human squabbles mattering that much in the scheme of things to a being that created us all. And all the other things you mentioned are just that.

 

[farfromhome]

No edit is annoying. I just realized I wasn't really addressing your main point. Basically, why not just create us so that we'd be so incredibly inclined towards the Good that we'd never really even want to do evil? If there was no evil, we wouldn't be able to really appreciate the good (like I said earlier), or even really have as many opportunities to do good. After all, a lot of the good we can do is by combating evil!

 

[c.d.e]

Yes, and ever since then, God has been progressively removed from government.

No it hasn't. Courts have refused to remove "Under God" From the pledge or won't even hear the case. God is also found on government property everywhere. Including everybodies' pockets. Every bill and coin you own has God referenced in it. And Faith Based Initiative.

 

[HOCP4ME]

It seems the exact opposite is happening now with W in office.As far as religion goes,I think its all dangerous,and has no place in government in any way.

While I'm not too fond of Bush, I in no way think he shouldn't be allowed in office due to his Christianity. Not allowing religious people in office on that condition is blatant discrimination. It's just as bad as not allowing blacks or women in office. I cannot believe you would suggest that our government discriminate against religious people using what is just a different form of racism. As long as someone does not use his political position to force his religion on other people, he should by all means be allowed to take office.

I know exactly what your next argument will be. You'll say that Bush has vetoed several pro-choice and stem cell research bills. My reply is that he vetos those bills because he believes they constitute legalized murder, not because the Bible says "thou shalt not permit stem cell research". There are atheists who believe getting an abortion should be considered murder.

Thats the one area where he is dead wrong,it('the war') has nothing to do with bringing democracy into Iraq,and everything to do with lining the coffers of the Cheneys and Haliburtons,and private armies of the world.

Its about greed and black gold and private agendas,and little else.


Background :

I have been voting conservative at all levels since 1989.Since 1994 I have been a card carrying member and supporter of the Reform Party,and now the Conservative Party Of Canada.I was born in the US,in NY State,but live and study,and work in Canada curently.

With that opinion, I suggest you stay in Canada. It would be a crime against humanity for you to ever consider supporting and paying taxes to a government that murders innocent civilians for personal monetary gain.

We can stick to what the founding fathers intended (isn't that what social conservatives frequently preach?)
[/INDENT]

Not sure if you're supporting my argument or not? I never said the founding fathers intended for our government to be religious.

No it hasn't. Courts have refused to remove "Under God" From the pledge or won't even hear the case. God is also found on government property everywhere. Including everybodies' pockets. Every bill and coin you own has God referenced in it. And Faith Based Initiative.

I don't believe the word "God" is government promoting religion. First off, every religion believes in a God, not just one or two. Second, even most non-religious people believe there is/may be a God or some sort of higher power. All the government is doing with mottos such as "under God" and "in God we trust" is appealing to whatever higher power may exist, if any.

Also, government officials should not be prohibited from expressing their religious beliefs just like ordinary citizens. Freedom of Speech applies to the government itself, too. If, for example, a Christian judge wants to put a Ten Commandments display in his courtroom, he should be able to do so as long as he does not force anyone to recognize or pay attention to it.