Romney Speech

I don't get this idea that we can't "disprove" God. What counts as disproof. If something has absolutely no evidence and a ton of coutner-evidence, it is effectively disproven. What else do you claim can't be "disproven" that you hold out some possibly of belief in? Not to mention the obvious disproof:

In former times, one sought to prove that there is no God -- today one indicates how the belief that there is a God arose and how this belief acquired its weight and importance: a counter-proof that there is no God thereby becomes superfluous.

-Nietzche

Telling me how useful something is to my existence, espcially something like a belief, is likely a counter-proof of its truth because it explains why the belief exists. Just because something might be good for me (or might have been good for me) doesn't mmake it true. If it were, then the Nation of Islam and its whacky theories are likely true.

Disproof...so basically everything is true!

Forget C.S. Lewis,Kant,Hitchens...the best piece ever written(and directed) about Religion/Theism is the episode "the greatest story ever sold" of the Dinosaurs series, Jim Henson was a genius.

Brian wrote:

Everything that needs to be said about this ridiculous hypcrites victim-mongering speech has been admirably condensed by Christopher Hitchens in today's Slate:

http://www.slate.com/id/2179404/

Brilliant!

You call that brilliant ?

...rofl wrote:

Like Hillary? (sound of hysterical laughter)

If it came down to it, I'd vote for Bush again...Lord help me...rather than HER.

You toolbox. Most people can't say what they dislike about Hillary, other than that she's a woman and a liberal..then those precious few enlightened people who don't think it's a good idea for children born into poverty to be granted health care, a basic human right...instead, you support someone like mitt romney, a 21st century religious nixon, who gives one speech which was obviously written by writers with a talent for knowing what gets a rise out of an audience, and how to lead up to it with overly-complicated language...mitt has never sounded this smart when he has to speak on his feet, in debates, but when he gets some phonies to write this ridiculously anti-agnostic/atheist speech, suddenly he sounds 'academic' (which by no means he is)...and don't for a second tell me that you are voting for him because he sounds smart, gore sounded smart in the 2000 campaign and it lost the election for him.

Smokey Joes Blues House wrote:

You call that brilliant ?

I liked it, all except his personal attack on Huckabee. I think that was petty and unnecessary

Hitchens is as usual brillant. I dont like the guys politics on a lot of issues but he is one of the last remaining true conservatives. Sad to see that type go the way of the dinosaur

I would say that hitchens had it pretty wrong here. I\'m mormon and just last sunday I got a lesson strait out of the new testimate. All my life I have been told that the bible is the word of god. And never, ever have I heard that men will have many wives in heaven...just sayin.

blibble blibble blibble wrote:

Brian wrote:

Everything that needs to be said about this ridiculous hypcrites victim-mongering speech has been admirably condensed by Christopher Hitchens in today\'s Slate:

http://www.slate.com/id/2179404/

Brilliant!

Were you a part of the Church before the 1980s when black people weren't given the same equal status as whites? What was the like?

I never said that utility and truth are mutually exclusive. I said that a society that values utility over truth is less likely to value justice and freedom.

The most obvious fact that argues against the truth of religion is that they can't all be true. We have all of these people throughout history (Paul, Mohammed, Joseph Smith, David Koresh etc) who have claimed to have special knowledge directly from god or someone sent as a messenger of god.

If you are religious that means that you believe EVERY one of these men were liars EXCEPT for the one you believe is true. Isn't it much more reasonable that ALL of these men were liars and conmen? That all of them were using the idea of god to gain power? Maybe some of them even believed their own stories, because of the power they had over other people. But, the fact people will believe in anything that gives them hope doesn't make it more true.

I am more than willing to let people believe what they want to believe. But, it upsets me when someone who could possibly be our next president says that a society must believe in these stories (even if people believe in stories that contradict each other) in order for there to be freedom in that society. I think that a society must value Truth in order to have freedom and justice - believing in stories made up by other men has nothing to do with valuing freedom - and it scares me that we even have to debate that point.

I too am a Latter Day Saint and laugh when people say we do not believe in the New Testament. We seem to study it every Sunday.

oldfart wrote:

Hitchens is as usual brillant. I dont like the guys politics on a lot of issues but he is one of the last remaining true conservatives. Sad to see that type go the way of the dinosaur

I dont know where you get that he's a conservative, he was once introduced as a conservative on television and denied it and said he was "no kind of conservative." As far as his views go i think the more you listen to him the more he makes sense. A lot of his speeches(check youtube) are so dense that they take a couple listens. i used to think he wrote brialliantly about religion, but not about the war in iraq. But i think brilliance does not change from subject to subject, and i think anyone who is very against the war in iraq owe it to themselves to listen to hitch. I think he might be the one person that is left that took me from a liberal's stance on the war on iraq to undecided. i also like when he redicules his liberal base (a la on the bill maher show)

oldfart wrote:

Hitchens is as usual brillant. I dont like the guys politics on a lot of issues but he is one of the last remaining true conservatives. Sad to see that type go the way of the dinosaur

I dont know where you get that he's a conservative, he was once introduced as a conservative on television and denied it and said he was "no kind of conservative."and says regularly he has no party affiliation. As far as his views go i think the more you listen to him the more he makes sense. A lot of his speeches(check youtube) are so dense that they take a couple listens. i used to think he wrote brialliantly about religion, but not about the war in iraq. But i think brilliance does not change from subject to subject, and i think anyone who is very against the war in iraq owe it to themselves to listen to hitch. I think he might be the one person that is left that took me from a liberal's stance on the war on iraq to undecided. i also like when he redicules his liberal base (a la on the bill maher show). The war in iraq i think might be the single thing that he agrees with with this administration and he is more pissed off than anyone how badly they've skunked it up.

So you think he writes brilliantly on religion, where you presumably agreed with him all along.

But you DON'T think his writings on the Iraq war are brilliant, and yet he's the one person who was able to change your mind on it?

wuh? sorry maybe i mispoke. people always think he's an idiot when it comes to iraq, i just disagree with those people. i think he's brilliant about iraq and religion.

LDS Guy wrote:

I too am a Latter Day Saint and laugh when people say we do not believe in the New Testament. We seem to study it every Sunday.

...but you think it's incomplete?

bob II wrote:

some Romney interesting history

The Republican party was formed to combat the twin evils of Slavory and polygamy. When it was formed the Mormons were the enemy and Blacks were the beneficiaries.

Now most \"African -Americans are democrats and see republicans as the enemy and most Mormons are Republican faithful.

Just a quick history lesson for your gee whiz file.

Where do you get that the Republican Party was formed to combat slavery? FYI, Lincoln\'s Emancipation Proclamation was only a tool used to gain waning public support for the war, as he was worried about losing the \'64 election after what had been a stalemate. Up til this point, Republicans only wished to prevent the expansion of the institution of slavery. Also the EP did not touch slavery in the Union Upper South. SO--Republicanism went against slavery when Lincoln had no other means of KEEPING THE COUNTRY UNIFIED.

Just a quick history lesson for your gee whiz file.

kuriosity killed the kat wrote:

LDS Guy wrote:

I too am a Latter Day Saint and laugh when people say we do not believe in the New Testament. We seem to study it every Sunday.

...but you think it's incomplete?

Define incomplete???

do I think that paul and peter wrote other letters that oculd have been included inthe new testament. The answer to that is yes. So it is not a complete work of the writings of the apostles.

Do I think that it does not include the teachings that Our Saviour thought were so importasnt that he came back from the dead to deliver them. (He taught them for 40 days after his resurrection and we know almosty nothing about it)

Do I tyhink that all the words that My Saviour spoke while he was alive are recorded in the Gospels? Nope don't think that either.

Do I think that it contains the Gospel of my Lord? YEs I do.

Do I read and study it? Yes I do.

Gunsmoke wrote:

Where do you get that the Republican Party was formed to combat slavery? FYI, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was only a tool used to gain waning public support for the war, as he was worried about losing the '64 election after what had been a stalemate. Up til this point, Republicans only wished to prevent the expansion of the institution of slavery. Also the EP did not touch slavery in the Union Upper South. SO--Republicanism went against slavery when Lincoln had no other means of KEEPING THE COUNTRY UNIFIED.

Just a quick history lesson for your gee whiz file.

The combatting of Slavory goes well beyond one piece of paper signed by one president.

More information you really need but at least you will be a little more informed and have a little better Gee Whiz file. ;-)