"SC Police Hastily Scratch “Lord” and “Matthew 5:9” Off Monument...."

[A Vestigial Mote]

You can't base an argument on hypotheticals, hypotheticals are non-arguments and shouldn't be considered when trying to prove a point.

My original post was only an opinion as to WHY record numbers of young people in the coming generations are less religious. you do understand that this is separate from the FACT that record numbers of young people from the incoming generations are less religious. Right? You get that? That I was just hypothesizing why this fact is a fact? It wasn't an "argument" - and I didn't posit it as such. I readily admitted that it was only opinion. And, again, your comments weren't even keeping with topic of the post you replied to if you were talking about some predictable percentage of these irreligious youngsters turning to religion in their elder years. Religious adherence is on the decline. POINT OF FACT.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Not how the law works. Think of it this way. How would you feel if your local PD displayed a gifted statue of Satan wearing a badge and uniform, with a plaque that praised both law enforcement and Satan?

Or worse... Muslims!

 

[The Reverend Bob]

I said I just felt that was a step in the chain toward irreligion on the whole.

^This is a hypothetical for your knowledge and edification. Take notes. We do not argue hypotheticals because hypotheticals are ridiculous.

Then you posted a bunch of crap not related to that point at all

Crap that is back by science and was pertinent to my point that those most of those hippy kids will eventually turn religious as they grow older. Why do you hate science?

Then you were the first to go off track - because that post was about "RECORD NUMBERS" of young people not being religious.

It is true that they are not being religious in "RECORD NUMBERS" but the facts are they are gravitating towards "Spiritual but not religious" in "RECORD NUMBERS", a fact you keep trying to sweep under the rug.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

^This is a hypothetical for your knowledge and edification. Take notes. We do not argue hypotheticals because hypotheticals are ridiculous.

I already told you I had nothing to defend this as a position. What the hell about that says "argument" to you? Are you daft?

Crap that is back by science and was pertinent to my point that those most of those hippy kids will eventually turn religious as they grow older.

So, your reply was pertinent to your reply? Do you even think before you write this stuff? Note that you didn't insist that your reply was pertinent to the post you replied to... because it wasn't.

Why do you hate science?

I'm not even going to bother with this.

It is true that they are not being religious in "RECORD NUMBERS" but the facts are they are gravitating towards "Spiritual but not religious" in "RECORD NUMBERS", a fact you keep trying to sweep under the rug.

I dare you to go count how many times I wrote (and therefore acknowledged) "spiritual but not religious." (Hint: the number is greater than zero) Jesus man... your obtuseness is freaking palpable at this point.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

So, your reply was pertinent to your reply?

The article I posted was.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The article I posted was.

I'll grant you this. Yes. You stated that the younger people were more becoming "new age hippies" than atheists, and in defense of that idea, pointing out that some of those counted as "spiritual, not religious" would, in fact, turn back to religion at some point is a valid point.

However - I still assert that this is not pertinent to the original message you quoted, which stated that record numbers of younger people in the newer generations were in this "irreligious" (spiritual, not religious) category. The point you made was that some of those would turn back toward religion - however even the article you linked does not indicate that a large-enough percentage would turn back toward religion to reverse the tide of "irreligion" that seems to be the overall, record-breaking trend.

 

[columbus]

I fully expect a huge uptick in religiosity towards the end of this century.

World leadership is driving the human bus closer and closer to environmental collapse, nuclear war, and economic disaster.
We are creating our own apocalypse.

I expect the survivors to return to religion hugely.
Tom
ETA ~Fortunately, for me, I'm 60 and don't expect to be around~

 

[The Reverend Bob]

"irreligion" that seems to be the overall, record-breaking trend.

To lump in "spiritual but not religious" in that category with atheists and agnostics is ridiculous. It is like lumping in leprechauns with broccoli and cucumbers because they are all green. There is a vast difference between being "spiritual" and being an atheist or agnostice. in fact it is not just a difference, it's a chasm

 

[columbus]

There is a vast difference between being "spiritual" and being an atheist or agnostice. in fact it is not just a difference, it's a chasm

You might be surprised by how many theists insist that atheism is a religion.
They don't see your chasm.
Perhaps you'd explain it to them. They certainly don't listen to me when I try to do so.

Tom

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

To lump in "spiritual but not religious" in that category with atheists and agnostics is ridiculous. It is like lumping in leprechauns with broccoli and cucumbers because they are all green. There is a vast difference between being "spiritual" and being an atheist or agnostice. in fact it is not just a difference, it's a chasm

And my point was only ever that it is a step in the right direction - away from religion. Being between steps 2 & 3 on a 5-step list isn't all that far along, which I also acknowledged. I only hope the trend continues, and that religion sees its ultimate demise at the hands of more reality-based adherence to human ideals.

 

[Cooky]

To take down the passage now though, is blasphemy. And is a violation of my religious beleifs.

...Blasphemers..!

 

[Father Heathen]

It's a monument for the police. Apparently, they like it. It isn't there to please you.

Whether or not they or I like it or dislike it doesn't mean ****. This is about a government entity abiding the Constitution.

 

[Father Heathen]

To take down the statue now though, would equates to blasphemy. So whoever removed it is guilty of mortal sin, and gone unrepentant, must enter into hell.

Any god that pitifully petty and vendictive needs to have the statue stuffed right up their divine derriere.

 

[Cooky]

Just kidding

 

[Father Heathen]

It's far from bizarre to suggest a subjective basis for atheist morality and self-sacrifice. Are you claiming an objective basis instead?

So you're implying that humans only pretend to love and care for one another just because they believe that they'll be rewarded for it after death? That's that pretty pathetic concept of morality.

 

[Cooky]

That was a horrible joke actually in retrospect.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

It's a monument for the police. Apparently, they like it. It isn't there to please you.

No-- but cops are-- there to "please" (i.e. work for ) those who pay their salaries via taxes.

So yeah.... it kinda IS.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

That's my point. I don't see why atheists act like angry hornets nest when anyone in government position references a scripture verse or whatever.

Because it's strictly unconstitutional? Because forcing a particular religion onto the populous is Immoral?

How would you feel if the monument espoused some Islamic saying? I have no doubts at all, that you'd be gathering Traditional Pitchforks and Flaming Torches...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

To take down the passage now though, is blasphemy. And is a violation of my religious beleifs.

...Blasphemers..!

So what? You do not GET to FORCE your beliefs onto the whole population. That's how Separation Claus works.

 

[Cooky]

So what? You do not GET to FORCE your beliefs onto the whole population. That's how Separation Claus works.

But... freedom.!? What kind of freedom is it, if I don't get to freely force my beliefs onto others..?