Rick Reuben wrote:

Colonel Panic wrote: I certainly don't assume that everyone who follows a religion is an idiot.

This statement by you is illogical.

Um, no, it's not. It's only illogical if you place a straw man in my stead and then pretend that he said it.

Rick Reuben wrote:If we live in a universe of unexplained origins, then faith does not register anywhere on the scale of rationality.

I agree with the second half of this statement, but Faith and Reason are entirely separate, regardless of what we know about the Universe or any other topic.

Rick Reuben wrote:Only once an issue has been decided can people who refuse to accept the decision be termed irrational.

I did not say that any person was irrational. I said that beliefs without foundation in logic supported by evidence is irrational. And what do you mean by "decided"? Decided by whom?

Rick Reuben wrote:There is no decision on the origins of the universe, so there is no decision on whether a more intelligent life form could have spawned it or designed it or even whether that life form continues to manipulate it to this day.

Well, if any real, credible proof ever surfaces that such is the case, then I'll have to agree that's how it appears to have happened. However, it'd have to be some damn good proof, of course.

BTW, just because something is written in an old book or some guy dressed in funny clothes tells it to me, that doesn't constitute credible proof.

Rick Reuben wrote:Your insistence on equating faith with irrationality is just an attempt by you to use evidence none of us have to support your prejudice against the faithful, and it confirms this: you believe that if people were smarter, they wouldn't have faith. You prove this by only questioning the intelligence of the faithful here on this forum, and never questioning the intelligence of atheists and agnostics.

Again, you must be confusing me with somebody else because I never questioned anybody's intelligence around here, as far as I know. I generally don't go around trying to assess the intelligence of people. In my experience, that kind of activity is usually misleading anyway and is not productive in most situations. I am far more concerned with peoples' other virtues, such as honesty, integrity, humility and general benevolence.

Rick Reuben wrote:Belief in God *is* reasonable, because belief in the absence of God is reasonable.

What?!? Are you kidding me? By that logic, belief in unicorns is reasonable because belief in the absence of them is reasonable, as is the belief that lawn ornaments come to life after dark and have little tea-parties when nobody is looking, because the belief that inanimate objects don't behave that way is also reasonable...

Tell me honestly, have you ever taken a single class in logic, or a basic philosophy class?

Rick Reuben wrote:Both beliefs are reasonable, because they were both arrived at by humans using their powers of reasoning to their limits.

You've got it all wrong. Neither are reasonable, because humans are unable to arrive at a decisive answer despite using their powers of reasoning to their limits, so they have to take it on faith.

Non-belief in God (ie. agnosticism, admitting you do not know) however, is reasonable because there is no evidence for the existence of God, nor is there evidence of God's absence. So reason dictates that we admit "I don't know".

Rick Reuben wrote:

colonel panic wrote:Christ's teachings were followed far more closely by the ideal society as envisioned by "godless Communists" than the ideals of the "devout Christians" who have been running our country.

Yes, but that does not mean that Christ fully fits the definition of a communist, just because communism and Jesus both use the concept of sharing the wealth. A little kid who gives away half his peanut butter sandwich to his playmate at lunch is probably not a communist either.

Jesus can be seen as an influence on communism. He cannot be defined as a communist.

You're thinking of somebody else again. I never said Jesus was a Communist. I said that one of his teachings in particular sounds like Commie ideals.

I understand that modern Communism was not developed until almost 1900 years after the alleged year of Jesus' death.

Earwicker wrote:Whether he existed or not isn't this talk of Christ's penchant for Communism taking the whole thing way out of its historical context?

YES.

I understand you're too lazy to read my posts because they're not filled with shocking revelations about how the Jewish banking elite are screwing over the world, but I'll give you the short version:

Something "defined by its indefinability" is not logical or rational.

Look, I'm not saying that it's necessarily bad or unintelligent to have illogical beliefs. We all have them, every single one of us. But calling them rational when they aren't is indicative of somebody who doesn't understand what reasoning is or how logic works.

BTW, you ought to train yourself to read more stuff that isn't total sensationalist bullshit. You just may learn something.

Rick Reuben wrote:

newberry wrote:How do you know Obama really believes in god and isn't pandering?

This has to be the funniest line in the whole thread ( and I added some good ones ).

What Obama's intimate beliefs are, who can say?, but his public record shows someone whose commitment to religion is based primarily on the social and political advantages conferred by it.

One of the saddest traits of liberals is their habit of suggesting that another liberal is only adopting a position for political expediency, if that explanation is useful for explaining away candidate behavior that they don't like.

Except in this case, Obama's behavior is clearly politically expedient. Church leaders made it clear to him that his community outreach efforts would be met with more credibility, and be more effective if he were an active church goer. He shopped around, and found Rev. Wright, a progressive, liberal pastor with substantial clout in the community. Later, when Wright became a political liability, Obama dropped him.

How is this particularly scurrilous or abnormal behavior, especially for a politician?