GOP Faces 'Civil War'

[Andy]

I figured RICoder would split hairs with me, but I didn't expect you to start redefining the word 'faith'. Faith is the steadfast belief in something, regardless of supporting evidence and probabilities.

Faith in Christianity is a belief in the bible and the Christian God.

I can't even belief you're taking up this argument with me; do you need to look very far in the world to see that religious faith would instate unideal solutions in almost every way they could have their way?

You've got some touchy-feely definition of faith, I know. But, as far as I'm concerned, it's a dirty word in matters of quantifiable importance.

[RICoder]

How very black and white of you...

First off, faith holds an important role in society, especially the U.S. as a moral center for societal behavior. Yes, there have been and are bad examples of holy wars and crusades, but Christianity and Judaism have evolved beyond that point. My argument is that it is the LIBERALS who come down hard on the faithful, while at the same time arguing for tollerance. Just because you do not believe in god does not mean that people who do are stupid, that is the hight of arogance.

On the Chrichton...the point of that speach was extremism in pursuit of a goal, not that religion sucks. He likened the environmentalist movement to religion, and then showed how there actions are taking on a crusade like appearance. One would argue that he was arguing for moderation, not the elimination of religion.

[Maf54]

Why again did you put Liberal in all caps? Some of us, unlike you and our President, don't see that as a bad label.

*edit typo*

[RICoder]

If you percieve its use as a derogative, that is your perception. The caps were for emphasis.

[warmi]

"unlike you and our President, don't see that as a bad label."

Well, the answer couldn't be more obvious, now could it - that's cause you are blind.

:-)

[Maf54]

[Brig]

Bravo Andy.

Allowing faith to replace reason in the making of key decisions in a secular goverment is wrong.

I'm sure those on here arguing the contrary would be singing a different tune if the faith in question wasn't theirs.

[Andy]

You can say my hypothesis is black and white, because it is. I don't think that's a bad thing, because the real world observations support it; it's still a generality, of course, but it's so damn close to being true that my statements aren't that absurd.

Lets face it, given transparency of information and two decision-making groups, one religious and one scientific, the scientific method will always yeild a better or equal result than the religious one where results can be quantified.

In order for the religious method to trump the scientific one, in anything, either:
a.) the information has to be wrong/incomplete; or
b.) the scientific process isn't perfect.

A notable difference between the two methods, though, is that when the scientific method yields sub-optimal results it is driven to improve itself. The religious would be more inclined to change their perceptions until the sub-optimal is optimal.

So I stand by, and repeat, my statement: for matters of quantifiable importance, religious faith [tends to provide] unideal solutions.

There simply is no better approach to problem-solving than a rational/scientific one. Religion might get lucky now and again, but I'd rather my degree of success didn't count on stumbling across faults in the scientific method or getting lucky.

For that very reason, I think there is a lot of reasons to be worried about the fundie in the white house right now. Amongst others. (And I'd still vote for him over the other choice, Kerry. :( )

The extent to which our societal morals are religious is not a matter of faith. It's a matter of history; America derives from a Christian population (for the most part). American morality is Christian-influenced, it isn't Christian.

And that influence is steadily decreasing; amongst the educated elite, I'd wager it's almost zero. For example, I wouldn't expect Stephen Hawking to turn to the bible for help resolving a moral gray-area. He'd wager the pros and cons, and decide on the best course of action.

Is that too much to ask from the president? I don't care if he prays on his own time, but don't wager American prosperity on the Bible.

And Liberals aren't coming down on Christians (of course there's exceptions) -- that's just the good ol' Christian persecution complex going apeshit again. Sometimes I wonder if that religion could exist without a real world satan for them to struggle with and be victimized by. It's seriously time to get off the cross, guys.

[warmi]

[James S]

[Brig]

[Caesar]

[sandmann]

[Andy]

[RICoder]