The Constitution of the United States is essentially a religious document. It is not based on a proven scientific theory that a republic is the "best" form of government.

No one can prove that democracy is a more efficient or rational method of governance than let's say, socialism or the rule of an enlightened philosopher-king. The idea a person has rights is a statement of values, not of empirical fact.

At present, science cannot tell us how best to govern ourselves. All of the philosophical notions of Locke, Hobbes and Rousseau are just the foundation of a few secular religions. On the other side of the political spectrum, Marx is father of the religion of communism

All of the political bickering on this forum is religious debate. Flint, Tarzan and others are deeply religious. It just that their religions of choice are secular and political.

-- Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men (only@theshadow.com), March 30, 2001

Answers

Thanks for the best laugh I've had all week!

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), March 30, 2001.

I can't tell if I'm a member of the Organized Baseball Religion. I've never worshipped St. Doubleday, but on the other hand I sure do enjoy attending their services.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 30, 2001.

Clearly you need to come clean, Flint. No one can prove that baseball is more enjoyable or rational method of recreation than, let's say, football or hockey. The idea that a person can enjoy one game more than another is a statement of values, not of fact.

-- Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men (only@theshadow.com), March 30, 2001.

I attend the Church of Football every Sunday in the Fall. Sometimes on Thursdays, Saturdays, and always Monday nights too.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), March 30, 2001.

If you are going to imitate me on every thread, it will work better if you make salient points. The baseball issue is a red herring, and your response shows a lack of critical thinking skills. Flint is deflecting the original observation by the use of humor. The real issue is that Flint, Tarzan and others are stuffed to the gills with "values" that have absolutely no scientific foundation. Flint scorns values with a religious taint because they are nonrational, yet his libertarianism is nothing more than a secular faith.

If you want to use a baseball metaphor, this is like Flint suggesting football fans are irrational idiots while he holds season tickets for the local baseball team. (We'll leave Yankee Stadium for another day.) The delicious irony is Flint's argument. When Flint argues that football is stupid and unscientific, the religious people argue with Flint on his terms. They never bother to point out he's a big baseball fan and that's just as nonrational.

-- Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men (only@theshadow.com), March 30, 2001.

Who knows,

Ah, but can you support your theories? Or are they based on......faith? :)

By the way, values have been shown to be a conditional type of fact -- a sub-category of fact; and the necessity of rights -- certain ones -- have been proven as well, given the nature of the human being. There's no way I could possibly show all that -- do it justice -- in a few posts here, but Ayn Rand's works, as augmented by previous and subsequent philosophers, have pretty much solved those two issues (among many others). If you're interested, I could point you to a few books for starters.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), March 30, 2001.

Yes, yes my troll, you've finally gotten it. Any belief that is not directly supported by scientific evidence is based on religious faith. Therefore, Tarzan and Flint, far from being intellectuals, are at the same level as everyone else.

-- Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men (only@theshadow.com), March 30, 2001.

I'm really getting tired of you, troll.

Eve, of course my theory is based on faith. Anyone who believes anything at all is religious and has faith. Ayn Rand could be the pope in an alternate universe because, shockingly, everyone of her values are not based on science.

Anyone who disagrees with me is only engaging in religious debate.

-- Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men (only@theshadow.com), March 30, 2001.

Who knows,

In essence, are you saying, then, that there are no absolutes?

-- Eve (eve_rebakah@yahoo.com), March 30, 2001.

Yes Eve, there are no absolutes except that everyone absolutely has religious faith. To suggest otherwise makes me very, very uncomfortable.

-- Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men (only@theshadow.com), March 30, 2001.

Who knows has hit it. In discussing this with Flint and No Spam, I had to force myself to type, "...believe that God doesn't exist..." vice "...don't believe in God...", for that is a belief system in and of itself. It's just as valid as any other belief system.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 30, 2001.

I don't agree.

It's politics, not religion.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), March 30, 2001.

Who knows = Maria

-- (dudey@37.com), March 30, 2001.

NO NO NO NO NO!

EVERYTHING is religion damn it!

EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Disengage.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 30, 2001.

Who knows,

Well......are you absolutely sure that everyone absolutely has religious faith, and that that's the only absolute? Or...well...I guess we'd have TWO absolutes now, right? But JUST two? (still grinning, so be nice) :)

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), March 30, 2001.

The idea of a Philosopher-King has always appealed to me, in theory. I 'spose I miss my Daddy

-- Lars (larssguy@yahoo.com), March 30, 2001.

Lars = Tarzan

-- (dudesy@37.com), March 30, 2001.

Tarzan = dudesy

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), March 30, 2001.

We have a Philosopher-King in our midst, Lars. Or have you forgotten our benefactor? Surely you realize he adopted the moniker Uncle as a way to draw the little people closer to him, to close the gap created by his mighty intellect & birthright, and ours.

(No, I did not overdo it with the nitrous oxide at the dentist's office this morning. Tried that but the hygienist caught me before I got my first lung full.)

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), March 30, 2001.

This is all fine and well, but people, we're getting rather far afield here. This thread is for the discussion of such alleged atheists as Flint, Tarzan, and Ayn Rand and how I am absolutely correct in all that I say. If you want to disucss anything else, you'll have to start your own thread. This one's taken.

-- Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men (only@theshadow.com), March 30, 2001.

Ok, ok, ok...

Well, for starters...the burden of proof is on the party who asserts the existence of something...right?

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), March 30, 2001.

Sit on it, Potsie. I post what I want, when I want, where I want.

Another way to look at it: Thread drift happens.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), March 30, 2001.

One would think I could attract a higher class of imposter. Eve, you cannot prove the scientific existence of rights. They are a philosophical invention, no more real than any value, virtue or vice. Show me where to cut a man open and find his rights. Perhaps the soul is in the same area?

Buddy, it takes a sharp knife to separate politics and religion. The only difference, as I see, is that religion costs me a good less money every year.

Rich, I suspect you right. Big Uncle is watching.

And finally the imposter, this thread is not about Flint or Tarzan. For all we know, Flint has a back-up religious plan similar to his Y2K preparations, maybe a pre-recording statement of faith for every major religion in the event of a life-threatening situation.

The real issue is that political philosophies are just as much faith- based as any religion. Despite Eve's deep-seated faith in Ayn Rand, she can no more prove the scientific validity of objectivism than I can prove Big JuJu healed me from a nasty cold.

-- Thereal (shadow@oldtimeradio.com), March 30, 2001.

Rich = Eve

Sumer = Tarzan

Lars = dudley

Unc = All of the above?

lmao....drift on...

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), March 30, 2001.

It all semantics. Is secularism, is atheism a religion? IMO, they are not if religion is defined as a belief system that invokes a God, a supernatural dimension. IMO they are if religion is defined as belief system that merely requires a ritual, a dogma and shibboleths.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), March 30, 2001.

It's a religion if I say so, Lars.

-- Thereal (shadow@oldtimeradio.com), March 30, 2001.

Flint,

ROTF.....!!!!!!

Mar.

-- Not now, not like this (AgentSmith0110@aol.com), March 30, 2001.

Eve, you cannot prove the scientific existence of rights. They are a philosophical invention, no more real than any value, virtue or vice. Show me where to cut a man open and find his rights. Perhaps the soul is in the same area?

Interesting thread, "Thereal (shadow@oldtimeradio.com)".

BTW, there are a couple of books that address the issue of so- called "rights":

The Myth of Natural Rights by L.A. Rollins

Natural Law: Or Don't Put A Rubber On Your Willy by Robert Anton Wilson

-- nonehere (none@to.give.net), March 30, 2001.

lars is tarzan? seriously?

-- (cin@cin.cin), March 30, 2001.

cin=Manny?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), March 30, 2001.

What issue of National Review did you steal that from Shadow?

-- Alice in Wonder Bra (alice@wonder.bra), March 30, 2001.

If political preferences are now a religion, the separation between church and state has become truly a challenge. Holding opinions has turned us all into theocrats! Horrors!

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 30, 2001.

Uncle Deedah = Ladylogic

-- (cin@cin.cin), March 30, 2001.

LOLOL!!

XOXO cin

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), March 30, 2001.

ain't = cherri

-- (dudesy@37.com), March 30, 2001.

futureshock=futureshock?

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), March 30, 2001.

manny = mister bumblebar

-- Mrs. Scattlepoo (m@r.s), March 30, 2001.

Flint,

You're a better thinker than that. Every state establishes a religion. The monarchy is based on the notion that one man is wiser than the many. A republic is based on the idea that the many are wiser than the one. Given my experience with mobs and internet forums, I'm not sure I can buy either argument. The whole America patriotic jingoistic dogma is just a secular religion started by secular saints like Jefferson, Washington, Adams, etc. The constitution makes the U.S. government as dogmatic as the catholic church. Show me the scientific proof that the American systemic is the most "sound" or "efficient" or "best" system of governance. We'll be in the same boat you found yourself in on the kids learning religion as toddlers thread. Like the rest of Flint, you believe a helluva lot more than you can prove.

-- Acceptno (imitations@shadow.com), March 31, 2001.

[Show me the scientific proof that the American systemic is the most "sound" or "efficient" or "best" system of governance.]

This is not within the scope of science at all. We are talking here about preferences and definitions, and science cannot investigate preferences or values per se. We might someday understand the brain well enough to understand the chemical patterns and locations (if any) corresponding to political ideas, but we can't address whether one system of government is "better" than another scientifically. A goal like "the greatest good for the greatest number" is only marginally useful. If it were even more vague, it would be useless. If it were more specific, we'd never find consensus on what "good" means.

So science cannot tell us what to prefer anymore than religion can tell us how plate tectonics works or politics can tell us if God exists. We must try to keep separate areas separate, because if we try to mix them up we only get confused by our own words.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 31, 2001.

"We might someday understand the brain well enough to understand the chemical patterns and locations......."

Flint--

"Might"?! I thought that someday that science was going to tell us everything. Aw c'mon, you promised.

I only want to know one thing------WHY? Why "what"? Why everything?

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), March 31, 2001.

Flint, you're wasting your breath here. This individual is so desperate to equate politics with religion that s/he actually asserts that any opinion or preference not based on science is religious faith. Attempting discourse will only encourage him/her. But then, you knew that already, didn't you?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 31, 2001.

flint = Ken

cin = capn fun

sumer = ? 1st clue I am to afraid of iq tests. I should go to the phobia thread. *sigh*

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), March 31, 2001.

Ken = Sumer

heh

-- (cin@cin.cin), March 31, 2001.

cin, you are MUCH to clever. Yes it is me, Ken. And here I thought I had everyone fooled.

damn again.

It should have been aparant to all involved that I have been Ken all along. Surely my intellegence has spoken for itself.

ha.

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), March 31, 2001.

Snippets from Rand on rights...

"A 'right' is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all others are its consequences or corollaries): a man's right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self- generated action--which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a ration being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)

"The concept of a 'right' pertains only to action--specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.

"Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive--of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights."

From: "Man's Rights," Virtue of Selfishness, by Ayn Rand, C. 1964

"Man holds these rights, not from the Collective nor for the Collective, but against the Collective--as a barrier whicyh the Collective cannot cross;…these rights are man's protection against all other men."

From: "Textbook of Americanism," pamphlet, by Ayn Rand, 5.

"The source of man's rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A--and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man's rights is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life."

Excerpt from: Galt's Speech, by Ayn Rand, as quoted in For the New Intellectual, by Ayn Rand, C. 1961

"The Right to the Pursuit of Happiness means man's right to live for himself, to choose what constitutes his own private, personal, individual happiness and to work for its achievement, so long as he respects the same right in others. It means that Man cannot be forced to devote his life to the happiness of another man nor of any number of other men. It means that the collective cannot decide what is to be the purpose of a man's existence nor prescribe his choice of happiness."

From: "Textbook of Americanism," by Ayn Rand, pamphlet, 5.

"Since Man has inalienable individual rights, this means that the same rights are held, individually, by every man, by all men, at all times. Therefore, the rights of one man cannot and must not violate the rights of another.

"For instance, a man has the right to live, but he has no right to take the life of another. He has the right to be free, but no right to enslave another. He has the right to choose his own happiness, but no right to decide that his happiness lies in the misery (or murder or robbery or enslavement) of another. The very right upon which he acts defines the same right of another man, and serves as a guide to tell him what he may or may not do."

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), March 31, 2001.

Actually, Tarzan, I am saying that anything that cannot be proven scientifically falls into the realm of belief. What we have learned in the 20th century is the Heisenberg Effect that tells the act of observation influences what we observe. Therefore, we do not see a subatomic particle behaving "naturally," we see a subatomic particle behaving as we influence it. We have learned that science and math cannot explain complex systems. We cannot explain the Red Queen or the Gambler's Ruin. In short, there's a helluva lot science ain't so sure about.

Flint admits that science cannot tell us much about political systems or philosophies. All of your fondly held liberal beliefs are faith based. From my perspective your political faith is not subtantially different than Al-d's religious faith. You just pray to a different God.

-- Still (theshadow@lurking.com), March 31, 2001.

Still:

So are you saying everything that is not science must be religion and vice versa? You sound like a child who has learned two words, and must pick one or the other to describe anything. You might be interested to know that the dictionary contains several more words than two, because thoughtful people have found that many distinctions can be drawn usefully, and that deliberately pretending real and important differences don't exist is foolish.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 01, 2001.

No, Flint, I am not saying that but does it make it easier for you when you misrepresent the argument of your opponent? It must because you've used this same debating tactic over and over.

You and Tarzan invoke science when it suits you and conveniently ignore the fact that all of your political philosophy (and so much more) is nothing more than a bucket full of nonscientific values. The point I'm making is simple. All of your political arguments can be dismissed in exactly the same manner you dismiss religion, and with the same "God of the gaps" arrogance.

Maybe you were exposed to Any Rand as a four-year-old and you're now "hard wired" for libertarian thinking? Maybe Tarzan had a communist nanny who hummed Marxist slogans while she changed him.

Read my original post, Flint. I'm not saying that everything not scienfitically provable is religion. The point is more subtle than your cartoon characterization. Science can solve many riddles but it will never provide all the answers. Philosophy does not emerge from science, but from a different body of thought. Human values like love, compassion, justice, truth... none of these can be defined by empirical investigation. If the term "religion" bothers you, substitute "philosophy" or "metaphysics" or "epistemology" or "ethics."

It seems as long as we keep God in the closet, you are comfortable discussing philosophy. The moment religion rears its head, you (and others) wave a dismissive hand. You cannot separate the progress of philosophy from the progress of theology. And whatever your personal bias, theology is a branch of human thought that provided insights into the human condition. (Maybe you were beaten by a nun at a tender age?)

Just tell me this, Flint, do you have Pascal's back up plan? Is there a Bible stuffed in your Y2K supplies, just in case?

-- still (theoriginal@shadow.com), April 01, 2001.

Actually, Tarzan, I am saying that anything that cannot be proven scientifically falls into the realm of belief.

Actually, Shadow, what you said was that all political opinion amounts to religious belief. Either you're very ignorant about politics, religion, or both. I vote both.

What we have learned in the 20th century is the Heisenberg Effect that tells the act of observation influences what we observe. Therefore, we do not see a subatomic particle behaving "naturally," we see a subatomic particle behaving as we influence it. We have learned that science and math cannot explain complex systems. We cannot explain the Red Queen or the Gambler's Ruin. In short, there's a helluva lot science ain't so sure about.

And therefore, any opinion equates to religious belief. This is what happens when you learn physics from watching Star Trek.

Flint admits that science cannot tell us much about political systems or philosophies. All of your fondly held liberal beliefs are faith based. From my perspective your political faith is not subtantially different than Al-d's religious faith. You just pray to a different God.

Actually, my political beliefs are based on preferance. I prefer freedom to bondage. I prefer capitalism to communism. I prefered McCain to Bush, Gore to Nader, and Browne over all of them. Yada yada yada.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 01, 2001.

still:

[You and Tarzan invoke science when it suits you and conveniently ignore the fact that all of your political philosophy (and so much more) is nothing more than a bucket full of nonscientific values.]

Hoo-whee, and you say *I* misrepresent what people say! Now, let's compare this statement with what I have actually written on this thread, OK? I said "science cannot investigate preferences or values per se." I wrote "science cannot tell us what to prefer". I wrote "we can't address whether one system of government is "better" than another scientifically." I have carefully delimited what science can usefully address and what it cannot. How can you write with a straight face that I "conveniently ignore" what I said three times already?

[All of your political arguments can be dismissed in exactly the same manner you dismiss religion]

Here we must agree to disagree, I guess. For me, politics is useful and necessary. Politics is a means of minimizing and resolving social conflicts, and a means of providing a legal context within which we can all try to get as much as we can out of life, a constantly changing work-in-progress of social organization.

Now, you might claim (many do) that religion can serve these same purposes. Superficially, this sounds compelling. Religion can provide shared values so that social conflicts rarely arise, and may inspire people toward a better life. But in practice, what distinguishes politics from religion is flexibility. Politics is inherently practical, pragmatic, amoral. It focuses on the way things are rather than the way things *ought* to be. It is not dogmatic. It derives its authority from the governed, who can (and do) change their minds, rather than from some unchanging diety as interpreted through a priesthood. Theocracies tend to be ruthless because their leadership considers itself right by definitiion, rather than preferable by trial and error.

I don't think you understand the "God of the gaps" issue. This phrase has been created (not by me) to describe those who believe that religion can provide understanding of the natural world (the world of science), insofar as using "God" to explain whatever science hasn't figured out yet. Most clerics also deride the "god of the gaps", recognizing that (as I have said several times already) the natural world is not the province of religion, just as morals are not the province of science. When science finally figures out how some natural thing works, religion is not comfortable saying "well, I guess it wasn't God after all".

[Science can solve many riddles but it will never provide all the answers.]

This has GOT to be a misunderstanding by now. Science addresses the observable, measurable universe. I agree the real universe appears endlessly complex, and science is unlikely to ever figure out everything there is about it. But observable-universe riddles *still* fall within the world of science, and NOT religion or politics.

From my perspective, religion is a valid approach toward solving a problem I don't seem to have. If your faith enriches and rewards your life, then I can only applaud. Try to understand that others find this enrichment and reward in other ways, not necessarily better or worse, but people come in all shapes and sizes.

But for me, this is very distinct from some people telling me how to live my live because they are RIGHT! Again we get back to the mutability of politics. If I think a law is bad, I can work to change it. Politics lacks religion's absolutes. The American Constitution's first amendment tries to erect a barrier between church and state, and the authors of that amendment were under no illusions that politics and religion are NOT the same thing. They knew better, and so do I.

And incidentally, I own the holy books of several religions. I find it interesting the thing people choose to believe.

[It seems as long as we keep God in the closet, you are comfortable discussing philosophy. The moment religion rears its head, you (and others) wave a dismissive hand.]

Well, not quite (though it looks that way). I don't dismiss religion generally, when regarded as bodies of different philosophies. The pros and cons of various possible philosophies can be entertaining to discuss. What I dismiss is when people pick one particular religion and start preaching. For me, that has left the world of comparative philosophy behind in favor of a completely non-negotiable One True Answer. Those who cannot see (for example) the possible advantages of Shintoism over Christianity are not philosophers, they are bible- bangers.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 01, 2001.

Tarzan,

Your writing is a victory of style over substance, although it is a close race between two slow horses. Your political views are just opinions... not materially different than my opinions about God, movies or the best flavor of ice cream. You're basically Al-D with a better vocabulary and glib writing style. You just prefer a secular faith to a religious one. By the way, my entire point was that you have preferences, not proofs. Point proven.

Flint,

To me, you confuse the "theory" of politics with the reality. In my opinion, the "consent of the governed" is a fiction. Always has been, always will be. Political systems evolve and exist to protect the interests of the few at the expense of the many. The founding fathers understood this well enough.

The primary difference between a theocracy and a republic are just whose interests are protected.

Politics can be just as dogmatic and inflexible as any religion. In America, you have a realistic choice between two political parties who differ only slightly in philosophy. There is no legitimate opportunity for any "third" party to gain power.

The "democratic" system of America has perpetrated atrocities, killed its own citizens and generally done some pretty nasty stuff. A person's lack of patriotism has been treated like heresay. Remember the McCarthy era? The "Red" hunters felt they were totally "right" in their actions.

I'm not comforted by your civics book notion that citizens shape our government. From my perspective, the petty bureaucrats in the federal government are pretty hard to distinguish from petty bureaucrats in a theocracy. The civil bureaucrats invoke science just as freely as the priests invoke God, even those this science is often suspect at best. In both cases, it's usually expensive for the masses.

Just as politics can be inflexible, religions can evolve. Faith can also serve as the impetus for positive change. For example, many of the abolitionists were Christians.

I'm not suggesting America adopt a theocracy. And I support the progress of science. When it comes to politics, though, I think there is a substantial gap between theory and practice. In practice, America during it's first 200 years committed most of the same mistakes as any theocratic regime.

You seem to have a highly developed sense of dread when it comes to some religious person telling you what you ought or ought not be doing. When the Jehovah's Witnesses come to your door, you can ignore them. When the federal government comes to your door, they can kick it in and ask questions later. And your libertarian views will not change this any time soon.

Christians no longer burn heretics at the stake. The U.S. has probably grown beyond interring Japanese-Americans or conducting syphillis experiments on African Americans. Maybe both politics and religion are evolving, Flint?

-- Still (theroriginal@shadow.com), April 02, 2001.

Your writing is a victory of style over substance, although it is a close race between two slow horses.

Ad hominems will get you nowhere.

Your political views are just opinions... not materially different than my opinions about God, movies or the best flavor of ice cream.

In case you forgot, you said, several different times, that my political views amount to religious faith, that I pray to the god of my views. Now they're just opinions? How do you expect to have a discussion if you keep changing your argument.

Oh, that's right, you don't.

You're basically Al-D with a better vocabulary and glib writing style.

I don't think al-D would describe his religious faith as an opinion, do you?

You just prefer a secular faith to a religious one.

You're pretty unclear about how faith works, aren't you?

By the way, my entire point was that you have preferences, not proofs. Point proven.

Actually, your entire point was that I have a religious faith based on politics rather than a god(s). Unless you're seriously equating spirituality with political opinion, your argument is still a non- starter.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 02, 2001.

Well if this isn't the proverbial pot and kettle story. If ad hominem attacks get you nowhere, why are you so fond of using them? Your entire rhetorical style is cynical dismissal of any view you do not hold. At least Flint makes an occasional effort to actually have a dialogue. Instead of using your intellect to find a common ground, you spend your energy mocking and chiding anyone who dare disagree with you. This behavior is not limited to this thread, but every discussion you participate in.

Faith and an opinion are no so far removed. Both are convictions held on a basis other than empirical evidence. My point is that you can no more prove your devout political opinions correct than Al-D can prove God exists. You act, however, like your political opinions have some sort of superior foundation. You are quick to challenge others to "prove" their point, and no amount of proof will suffice. When challenged, you slide by any salient points just long enough to engage in the tired "I'm so superior" act.

Let's keep the world convenient for you, Tarzan. Anyone who believes in God is a deluded fool. Anyone who disagrees with you is an unmitigated idiot. Go forth and worship freely on the alter of self.

-- still (theoriginal@shadow.com), April 02, 2001.

Faith and an opinion are no so far removed. Both are convictions held on a basis other than empirical evidence.

By that logic, the Titanic is the same as my uncle's fishing boat, since both are made to carry people through the water.

My point is that you can no more prove your devout political opinions correct than Al-D can prove God exists.

And the Titanic and my uncle's fishing boat both use rudder to steer.

You act, however, like your political opinions have some sort of superior foundation.

That's just your perception. I perceive my uncle's fishing boat IS the Titanic. Doesn't make it reality though.

You are quick to challenge others to "prove" their point, and no amount of proof will suffice. When challenged, you slide by any salient points just long enough to engage in the tired "I'm so superior" act.

Oh, now I get it. You're bitter that I defeated you in a discussion and you're too scared to admit to who you are, which is why you hide behind the fake moniker.

Let's keep the world convenient for you, Tarzan. Anyone who believes in God is a deluded fool. Anyone who disagrees with you is an unmitigated idiot. Go forth and worship freely on the alter of self.

Actually, I have no problems with anyone who believes in a god or gods. Many of them are quite intelligent, others aren't, just like any other group of people. However, I'm glad to see that you've upgraded me from worshipping at the alter of political opinion to worshipping at the alter of self.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 02, 2001.

still:

You seem to be barking up the wrong tree here. You are confusing political structures with abuse of power. Power is *always* abused. We have sayings about power corrupting which have always been true. Your jaundiced view of what you consider political reality lies at the heart of your thesis. But a political system is different from the sum total of its abuses, and we don't need anyone's religion to recognize abuses and try to correct and prevent them.

Anyone setting up a political system must realistically deal with a lot of compromised positions. One one side, we want our government to have enough power to do useful things. On the other side, that's easily enough power to be abused by corrupt people. What to do? On the one side, we want to implement the will of the governed as well as we can define it. On the other side, we don't want the tyranny of the majority. What to do? On the one side, we want to reflect the will of as many interest groups as well as we can. On the other side, we don't want to be paralyzed by indecision. What to do? On the one side, we want to be able to react quickly to emergencies or unforseen circumstances. On the other side, oversight of quick action is necessarily minimal, permitting highly dubious actions. What to do? This list can and does go on and on.

But there are ways to handle these competing requirements beyond just throwing your hands in the air and claiming it's all religion or some such nonsense. We have police, but the police power is limited by law. We have votes, but constitutional prohibitions against abuse by the majority (i.e. the first amendment). We have checks and balances, so that the power of the purse is NOT the power of the law. We have procedures for examining quick actions at a later time. We can and do throw the scoundrels out, though not often.

[When the Jehovah's Witnesses come to your door, you can ignore them. When the federal government comes to your door, they can kick it in and ask questions later.]

UNLESS these Jehovah's Witnesses are government agents. This is the problem with a theocracy. I'm painfully aware that when the government comes to my door, I MUST open it and do as they say. For this reason, I want to have as much protection as I can get from them, and as much ability to reduce the number of *reasons* they might show up as possible.

When religion develops the tolerance to accept that it's OK for nonbelievers to behave in ways their church opposes, I'll feel more comfortable.

And in any case, why make the argument you do, trying to expand the definition of "religion" beyond all recognition so as to make it include what people understand that it does not, and that the US Founders worked very hard to explicitly *exclude*? To me, this simply sounds like laying the groundwork for saying "Since government and religion are the same, the law should compel everyone to obey the tenets of MY church." Otherwise, why try to make such a case? Why refuse to recognize that government is about WHAT we do, and religion is about WHY? And that we can agree about the what without any need to agree about the why. It sounds like you're trying to sneak your own religion in the back door with word games.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 02, 2001.

"Anyone who disagrees with you is an unmitigated idiot. Go forth and worship freely on the alter of self. "

I've told him before that he just likes to argue. Your assessment is probably more accurate. He argues to boost his own self image. He ought to cut to the chase, come right out and brag. It would save everyone a lot of time.

:)

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 03, 2001.

Flint, "When religion develops the tolerance to accept that it's OK for nonbelievers to behave in ways their church opposes, I'll feel more comfortable."

I too have rejected these beliefs. I thought I wrote this before: You are opposed to organized religion. (IMO you have this deep rooted dislike for organized religion which prevents you from seeing other possibilities.) You obviously haven't discovered other options out there where it *is* OK for all kinds of behavior.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 03, 2001.

I've solved the puzzle. Shadow is Maria. For example Maria is the only one who agrees with Shadow. Also Maria is the only other person on this board who thinks faith is just an opinion. Maria hates Flint and tarzan and Shadow cant seem to pick on anyone else.

-- Alice in Wonder Bra (alice@wonder.bra), April 03, 2001.

Maria:

You are only half right. I am NOT opposed to organized religion. I AM opposed to organized religion exercising political power, even indirectly. Organized religious dogma backed with guns is terrifying to me.

If there is any clear lesson politics has taught us, it's that you can't effectively legislate morality. Yet the bible-bangers continue to try this again and again, through sheer intolerance. So we had prohibition (of alcohol), learned nothing because our moral imperatives blinded us, so now we have prohibition (of drugs) all over again, with *exactly* the same results -- more drugs than ever, making organized crime wealthy and powerful.

So we are saddled with meaningless blue laws crippling businesses on Sunday for no sane reason, we have laws against pornography despite lack of ANY evidence that it's harmful (and some good evidence that it is helpful), we have a bunch of victimless crimes which must be enforced through entrapment, our net "benefit" being a deep distrust of the police who ought to be there to help us. We must continue to fight to keep the moralistas from outlawing abortion all over again, forcing women into back alleys again.

Now, I have nothing against people getting together as members of an organized religion and deciding to behave as their beliefs dictate, just so long as their behavior does not restrict my right to behave differently (but with equal consideration of their preferences). So if *they* don't like prostitution, they don't engage in it. Same with abortion. Same with blue laws -- if they don't believe in buying liquor on Sunday, then they don't buy it on Sunday. But as soon as they exercise the political power to force EVERYONE ELSE to suffer their chosen mistakes (in the opinion of everyone else), they have crossed the line.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 03, 2001.

Flint, I agree with you on that aspect of religion filtering its way into politics. The gov can not legislate morality but the current laws we *do* have are based, to a certain degree, on religion. (Stephen has already provided lots of thought on this.) Society must behave according to some level of morality for its own survival.

Alice, you got that bra too tight. Have you consulted anyone on "Maria hates Flint"? Or did you think of that all on your own? My aren't you the intellect, solving a "puzzle" that was only a part of your own imagination.

Who knows = Maria

-- (dudey@37.com), March 30, 2001.

Someone beat you to it in this very thread. I know, I know...

Alice = Dudey

-- Keep you (guessing@for.no.reason), April 03, 2001.

Actually Alice that makes a lot of sense. Maria is very bitter over my treatment of her in the past and has always insisted on misrepresenting my views whenever possible. She's certainly not the only one on this forum to have a strong dislike for me, but those who do have a strong enough dislike for me to bait me, such as Ain't, KoFE, Dennis, and cin, have always had the nerve to use their own handles. Well, except for cin who trolls under "Yes you know me" and isn't very articulate. Moreover, Shadow is clearly a person who doesn't have much regard for faith, equating it to an opinion, and that is a rather unique viewpoint shared by Maria. Finally, like Maria, Shadow uses the ridiculous in an attempt to elicit attention and discussion.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 03, 2001.

Oh yes tarzan. We are all out to get you. BOO!

Do you think it possible that paranoid people may be suffering from a guilty conscience? Hmmmmmmmm

Was that clear enough for you tarzan? Perhaps it's not lack of articulation that confuses you, but rather lack of comprehension. Just a thought of course. =)

-- (cin@cin.cin), April 03, 2001.

Cin-

Nope, it's not a guilty conscience, but the fact that I've acquired quite a fan club in the last couple of years here. I don't have a thing to feel guilty for. You, on the other hand...

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 03, 2001.

delusions of grandeur

there is help out there

get some

-- (cin@cin.cin), April 03, 2001.

Cin-

You go first.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 03, 2001.

KOW A BUNGA DUDES!!!!! flint you said a word bro.-NO ONE should=force there belief's on another.geesh even GOD don't do that. HE call's who HE call's and thats that. as a believer in THE GOD OF THE BIBLE,and having been [given] the gift of faith.''notice-none of this was MY doing'' and that's=scriptural]yup=power-corrupt's even in religion!! I,m still waiting for an answer on this verse[from god]it goes like=this[''let GOD be true and all men liar's''] wow I think I just got it!!boy the HOLY-SPIRIT never ceases to amaze me.yah if we arn,t speaking[by] holy -spirit-we are=liar's. yes yes now I see it, adam was created to be=TOTALLY dependant on GOD. he chose to rebel-sin-fail-get the big-head-you know what i mean eh???yah yah now I see -HE/GOD also said we are=vessel's HE'S the potter-we be the clay......some for honor-some for dishonor!!yup for years I was a nasty lil-trash can,then I heard that JESUS loved me,and died so I could be changed[by] HIM not by my strength!!now i,m kinda a toilet-beats being a trashcan-at least some get=RELIEF!!!YESSIREE I AGREE-each person has a right to be=respected!!many atheist's i meat in chat's are actually more likeable then some=religious =self righteous mean spirited so-called xians i meet in chat.it is very=un-christian to knock & belittle,so called un-believer's who havn,t been awakened yet by GOD! ~my only claim to my faith is=GOD did it-because I was a no.1 sinner & enjoyed it immensley!!er except for the =REAPING PART!! YET for some awesome reason HE had mercy on a total-failure named AL-d.yup i love a quote i read>>GOD has a hobby-HE collect's failure's.~~~~~peace homies!!!!!!!!

-- al-d (dogs@zianet.com), April 04, 2001.

Just a quick question al-d. Would you describe your faith as an opinion?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 04, 2001.

cin, it's nothing close to having an honest conversation with Tar. Recognize him for what he is and try not to perpetutate the antagonistic discourse.

(Just some advice, you don't need to heed. Take care :)

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 04, 2001.

In Maria-speak, an honest conversation equates to agreeing with everything Maria says.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 04, 2001.

HI TARZ,nope not an opinion 'too many experiences'here's how it worked for ME >once I beleived many,many prayers we're answered and the WORD OF GOD became=alive!!hey HE did say HE is the=WORD. it,s kinda hard to put into words-but when I read HIS WORD-it ALL made sense=there is a GOD/SAVIOUR and HE knows us better than we know ourselves.HE has a plan for mankind>>restoration!! so for me>1st I believed[HE did it]then I recieved. you know''born again''=spirit awakened.

-- al-d (dogs@zianet.com), April 04, 2001.

That's what I thought, al-d. Shadow/Maria here thinks that your deep faith is the equivalent of my political opinions. I keep trying to say that most people of faith describe the experience of having faith as very profound, but she just puts her hands over her ears and babbles, "You have religious faith Tarzan, yes you do,"

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 04, 2001.

HI TARZ,I was thinking-politics you make choices of your will, being=born again-saved-awakened-called-chosen [in] Christ-wahtever way a believer[who knows ] what the BIBLE say,s[not mans traditions] is very AWARE that GOD did something. loke scriptue states=SALVATION IS ~OF~GOD & GOD alone!! whenever a priest or pastor-ADD,S anything to ''the FINISHED WORK OF CHRIST'' they are an enemy of the=CROSS!! BUT THIS UNDERSTANDING OF ''THE TRUE-GOSPEL'' only comes by revelation =from GOD!SO HOW CAN ANYONE BE PROUD-SELF-RIGHTEOUS OR judgmental-when ALL Glory belong's to GOD & GOD=ALONE. nice chatting with yu tarzan.......

-- al-d (dogs@zianet.com), April 04, 2001.