Someone tried to kill me tonight

[Ed Lada]

The bolded part seems to me to define you as agnostic, not atheist. An agnostic is an atheist who hedges his bets, which is what you're doing there.

Jesus you are pedantic.  I am not hedging my bets, I am just honestly admitting that with things that are impossible to prove, it is foolish to say with absolute certainty that I am correct.  

Would you feel better if I said that I am certain in my mind that there is no supreme being but I can offer no concrete proof that I am correct?

 

[chinabald]

You have a megaphone right?  Just tell them to sit tight while you sort things out.  No need to rush the situation.  I'm glad we didn't have to give your family thoughts and prayers.  

I am going to assume the guy with years of experience and training knows how to handle a shoplifting arrest. What you perhaps don't get is the risk he takes everyday by merely putting on the uniform. Sometimes the police are attacked for no other reason then being police.

If the police worked based on the worst possible outcome of every interaction they would all be walking around in riot gear in groups of 10  

Everyone is an expert. 

 

[chinabald]

Yes, because a shit bag criminal in the middle of an altercation with a cop usually reaches for a cell phone or an insulin pump while he's being told emphatically not to reach in his waistband....

JFC!  The ONLY reason I'm glad VG didn't shoot this shit bag is I wouldn't want him to have to deal with the hassle and the inevitable moral ramifications that he would likely carry with him for the rest of his life regardless of how "good a shoot" it might have been.  But I honestly have to say I wish the shitbag had pulled the gun out and some other OKL officer with a body cam had put two in his chest and dropped the shitbag DTS. 

Sorry, but the world would have been a better place today without said shitbag in it.  Just saying.

Actually it happens. People reach for their phone to video the arrest or some other dumbass reason.

I watched a guy from 5 feet away getting arrested, was told to take his hands out from under his shirt, dumbass was so high he forgot what he was told and a second later his hand went back under his shirt to scratch an itch. He had a cop on him in a millisecond. Why would someone do that? Don't know but they do. 

 

[chinabald]

I hate the fucker because he can fill out MAGNUM condoms.

Maybe he also stole a box of rubber bands to keep them on.  

 

[SloopJonB]

The bolded part seems to me to define you as agnostic, not atheist. An agnostic is an atheist who hedges his bets, which is what you're doing there.

Wrong - an Agnostic is someone who recognizes that there is no answer to that particular question.

Not even 42.

 

[kent_island_sailor]

I know agnostics who state humans just don't have the ability to find the correct answer. If you think about it, any God with the powers commonly attributed to them could hide himself if he wanted to

 

[Steam Flyer]

I know agnostics who state humans just don't have the ability to find the correct answer. If you think about it, any God with the powers commonly attributed to them could hide himself if he wanted to

Or take the next step, shape the universe in such a way that us supposedly-sentient beings would never think of such a concept as Deity in the first place.

Personally, I don't see the conflict between science and religion. They answer two totally different sets of questions. Not all religions attempt to interfere in science, but those that do are  all about control, not faith.

-DSK

 

[Mrleft8]

Maybe he also stole a box of rubber bands to keep them on.  

Expandable cock rings?

 

[chinabald]

Expandable cock rings?

Just something to keep the magnums from falling off. 

 

[Ed Lada]

Or take the next step, shape the universe in such a way that us supposedly-sentient beings would never think of such a concept as Deity in the first place.

Personally, I don't see the conflict between science and religion. They answer two totally different sets of questions. Not all religions attempt to interfere in science, but those that do are  all about control, not faith.

-DSK

Religion doesn't answer any questions.  Religion is based on faith, there is nothing that can be proved by religion.  Except maybe the gullibility of the masses.

Science finds answers to questions through the rigorous application of the scientific method.  Comparing the two is like comparing apples to oranges.

I have no problem with deists, just don't try to tell me any of it is provable.

I would submit to you that most of the worlds Christian religions are all about control, not faith.

 

[Ed Lada]

I love these thread drifts.  That's part of what makes this place interesting.  Where else could you start off talking about cop killers and end up talking about cock rings and the existence of god???  

I hear you wear a cuck ring.

 

[SloopJonB]

I heard it was a 10 ring.

 

[Rumbulls]

A sobering real life story. 

Thank you for sharing, well done.   I believe this country has lost interest in the daily life of a police officer.  Daily stories like these need to be heard.

 

[Steam Flyer]

Or take the next step, shape the universe in such a way that us supposedly-sentient beings would never think of such a concept as Deity in the first place.

Personally, I don't see the conflict between science and religion. They answer two totally different sets of questions. Not all religions attempt to interfere in science, but those that do are  all about control, not faith.

-DSK

Religion doesn't answer any questions.  Religion is based on faith, there is nothing that can be proved by religion.  Except maybe the gullibility of the masses.

Science finds answers to questions through the rigorous application of the scientific method.  Comparing the two is like comparing apples to oranges.

I have no problem with deists, just don't try to tell me any of it is provable.

I would submit to you that most of the worlds Christian religions are all about control, not faith.

Religions answers a lot of questions, my friend. A large amount, possibly most, of human action is based on things we believe but can't prove and don't really know why we believe them. But what I meant above is, science is good at answering questions like "how can I provide myself and my family with safe healthy water to drink" there is no scientific way to determine "should I share my water with my neighbor."

Many (perhaps most) religions are about money and control. There is a theory that religion arose in primitive human societies where old people could no longer hunt or gather but convinced their tribes to keep them alive because only they could talk to the spirits. But there are several good purposes served by shared religion; my favorite is music which may not have arisen as a human art if we never tried to talk to the spirits. But I also prefer to live in a cohesive and organized society and religion is one of the reasons we have such a thing.

Most American mistake the reason we have religious freedom in this country. It was the most inventive thing the Founding Fathers came up with, it was almost unheard of before. And it wasn't because they were benevolent or wise or tolerant, every state had it's official religion at the time and many were in opposition to the Church of England. It was because the religious pinheads who wanted to impose their religion on others were each in a minority, they could not agree on which religion to impose.....  -and- just a few of the Founding Fathers were not personally religious and saw a way to put the gov't outside what was then the conventional (universal) socioeconomic framework. Now we take it far too much for granted.

-DSK

 

[Ed Lada]

Steamer, you appear to be comparing the physical and metaphysical as equals.  Science answers the concrete question, 'is this water potable.'  Whether or not someone chooses to share that water with someone in need is a moral, not a physical quandary.   There is only one correct answer to the water quality question, there are many correct answers to the sharing question.  Putting religion and science on equal footing is a terrible idea.  There are far too many people that think their faith, which is utterly subjective, is equal to science, which strives for objectivity.

Certainly, as sentient beings we must consider metaphysical questions but in my opinion much damage has occurred by organized religion attempting to gain a monopoly in this area and thereby exerting a huge amount of control and by extension, power.  By controlling the narrative, the religious authorities can bend the people to their will, claiming god's word is superior to anything else.  That's just utter bull shit.

I believe humans would have invented music for one reason or another.  We all have a diaphragm, lungs, vocal chords and a tongue.  Probably Thag's wife was humming to herself while ironing the bearskins, independent of the elders singing to the spirits.  As far as religion maintaining order and cohesion in society, I would insert the word coercive as well.  Nothing to get people to behave than threatening them with the fires of hell.  Look at Asian cultures which have a very different view,.  Buddha was a man, not a god, he just happened to attain enlightenment.  Asian cultures believe in getting along, not under threat of punishment but because it is obviously the correct, polite thing to do when you live with others.  They haven't done any worse than the Christians have.   

Yes, the Founding Fathers wanted to get the influence of religion out of the government, and it worked pretty well for a while.  The rise of the 'persecuted' white, Christian religious right in the US really concerns me.

 

[Steam Flyer]

Steamer, you appear to be comparing the physical and metaphysical as equals.  Science answers the concrete question, 'is this water potable.'  Whether or not someone chooses to share that water with someone in need is a moral, not a physical quandary.   There is only one correct answer to the water quality question, there are many correct answers to the sharing question.  Putting religion and science on equal footing is a terrible idea.  There are far too many people that think their faith, which is utterly subjective, is equal to science, which strives for objectivity.

Sure.

Scientists can't do much in the way of research if the peasants smash in their windows and set fire to the lab.

We need to "believe in" getting along, to some extent. Whether that's based on a belief in some Diety or that all humans should be considered as equals, it's faith. You can't prove a durn thing one way or the other, except that it's a lot nicer to work together and be secure and well fed than to starve in the bushes alone.

-DSK

 

[SloopJonB]

Religions answers a lot of questions, my friend.

Religion answers nothing.

It just provides a crutch for people who are unable to simply accept the unknowable.

Religious faith is merely wishful thinking.

 

[Steam Flyer]

Religion answers nothing.

It just provides a crutch for people who are unable to simply accept the unknowable.

Religious faith is merely wishful thinking.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

What you just said is really pretty close to the same thing that I said, except that you're condemning religion and I'm not (although I have certainly pointed to some of religion's greatest shortcomings).

To say "religion answers nothing" is just as silly and incorrect as saying "violence never settles anything."

-DSK

 

[Ishmael]

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

What you just said is really pretty close to the same thing that I said, except that you're condemning religion and I'm not (although I have certainly pointed to some of religion's greatest shortcomings).

To say "religion answers nothing" is just as silly and incorrect as saying "violence never settles anything."

-DSK

Would you settle for "religion answers nothing correctly"?

 

[Steam Flyer]

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

What you just said is really pretty close to the same thing that I said, except that you're condemning religion and I'm not (although I have certainly pointed to some of religion's greatest shortcomings).

To say "religion answers nothing" is just as silly and incorrect as saying "violence never settles anything."

-DSK

Would you settle for "religion answers nothing correctly"?

No, because it does.

Yahweh may or may not have spoken from a burning bush, but the Judea-Christian code of ethics was (and to some extent still is) a way of getting people to get along so you can have a successful community of human beings working cooperatively. We have some better ideas now, "better" in the sense that they lead to a wider range of cooperation and a higher level of inter-cooperation.

You can attribute some correct answers to "religion" even if any religion you can point to is actually a bunch of superstitious hooey. This is the difference between a rational objective approach and religious "thought". Religious types want to argue about whether Democrats are morally inferior to Republicans, or what color to paint Ronald MacDonald's nose on their carved idols. The rational observer can see the positive functions that religion can (and often does) serve in human society even if the she sees that the religion itself is mind-control pick-your-pocket bullshit.

-DSK