Newtown massacre and religion

Originally posted by invigorate
Rolex's don't harm people. Model T cars don't harm people either very often. However keeping a gun has the potential to harm people.

I don't understand shooting video games or movies either - I avoid both on the grounds that they glorify killing.

"Sometimes I may meet bad people" - I've never met anyone who deserves shooting!

I live in the count ...[text shortened]... ur liberty, is rather high.

How many people getting shot would be too many for you?

You have the viewpoint that people should be prevented from doing things that have the POTENTIAL to harm others.

I have a very different viewpoint which is probably irreconcilable.

My viewpoint is that people should be sanctioned for doing things that ACTUALLY harm others.

Originally posted by Soothfast
I don't believe in flying three-eyed monkeys on Mars. Does that make me religious?

Your religion is your worldview, there is not disctinction. One must accept basic assumptions that we can then build our worldviews around. Thebasic assumptions can't be proven one way or the other. Each of us must accept basic assumptions as truth to then function in life. This assumes of course that one wants to come to a conclusion. If you simply want to say that we know nothing and that we simply accept what works, then that's fine.

If you do that, then you can't make a statement about anything that you can actually test to verify. When I say that, I mean actually see first hand.

It would be difficult for any person to accept anyting of history as truth, but simply what is happening at the moment. But even such a person would have a religious belief, which is to say that nothing can be known for certain, therefore nothing is to be believed.

Originally posted by sh76
As soon as Presdient Obama started quoting scripture last night I turned on the mute button and waited for the Pats-SF game to come back. Wake me up when we get to policy discussion. I don't care what you think God thinks about the wanton murder of children.

Anyway, I noticed a cartoon making the rounds on Facebook of a bunch of children in a classroom in th ...[text shortened]... l, the vast majority of independent'e developed societies developed some sort of religion.

Interesting thoughts. I've heard that faith is a gift. Some have it, some don't. It could be argued religion is a crutch people use to sustain them during difficult times, but what sustains non believers during their difficult times? Is logic and reason enough? There are no simple answers...

Originally posted by bill718
Interesting thoughts. I've heard that faith is a gift. Some have it, some don't. It could be argued religion is a crutch people use to sustain them during difficult times, but what sustains non believers during their difficult times? Is logic and reason enough? There are no simple answers...

I think you are mistaken if you assume that nonbelievers in general embrace "logic and reason". They tend to be delusional and irrational too, just not (also) in the particular way religious people are.

You know, I used to think all the whacko's were from
fundamentalist Islamic countries,

But now I am convinced along with many others
that there are just as many whacko's in the USA.

Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
You know, I used to think all the whacko's were from
fundamentalist Islamic countries,

But now I am convinced along with many others
that there are just as many whacko's in the USA.

Yah, but you don't give the US wackoes a second thought because they haven't threatened you with violence. People like you bow down to the Islamic wack jobs because they will kill you.

Originally posted by spruce112358
You have the viewpoint that people should be prevented from doing things that have the POTENTIAL to harm others.

I have a very different viewpoint which is probably irreconcilable.

My viewpoint is that people should be sanctioned for doing things that ACTUALLY harm others.

Taking your position at face value: So you don't believe in security checks to prevent the hiring of convicted child molesters to take care of children. Instead you want to wait until they do actual harm. I suppose airplane passenger screening and restrictions on carry-on explosives should be eliminated too. Surely this is not what you meant to convey, is it?

Originally posted by bill718
Interesting thoughts. I've heard that faith is a gift. Some have it, some don't. It could be argued religion is a crutch people use to sustain them during difficult times, but what sustains non believers during their difficult times? Is logic and reason enough? There are no simple answers...

Honestly, I used to really have faith.


And then I really started to think about it.

Originally posted by JS357
Taking your position at face value: So you don't believe in security checks to prevent the hiring of convicted child molesters to take care of children. Instead you want to wait until they do actual harm. I suppose airplane passenger screening and restrictions on carry-on explosives should be eliminated too. Surely this is not what you meant to convey, is it?

A child molester has done actual harm already, so part of his sanction is never to be around kids again. I wouldn't approve a murderer for a firearm, either.

The plane is a better challenge -- you are referring to a restriction regarding time and place for some freedoms. So I can carry an explosive device or a gun in certain places -- just not on a plane.

I view that as the same as saying I can't drive the wrong way down a one-way street or sit down naked in the opera house (even if I don't happen to be harming anyone.)

But because you make a good point, and I will add a footnote that some things which do not ACTUALLY harm others are still not permitted everywhere at all times for various reasons.

That is very different, though, from saying one can't own or carry a weapon ANYWHERE.

Originally posted by spruce112358
A child molester has done actual harm already, so part of his sanction is never to be around kids again. I wouldn't approve a murderer for a firearm, either.

The plane is a better challenge -- you are referring to a restriction regarding time and place for some freedoms. So I can carry an explosive device or a gun in certain places -- just not on a p ...[text shortened]... ns.

That is very different, though, from saying one can't own or carry a weapon ANYWHERE.

I thought you would agree to that amendment, to open things up a bit to the idea of prevention based on potential. Cool by me.