Religious nut Senator Tom Cotton claims slavery and holocaust were necessary

[Momto2boys973]

But you also can’t prove you are right. If you can, please show me proof of why my beliefs are wrong. By your standards of “reason”, you also have no proof. Your views also fall short according to your standards of reason.
So again. You can’t tell people that YOUR “standards” for reason are more valid than theirs and therefore they should make choices according to them. Unless you can prove them.
And remember “lack of proof” isn’t proof of the contrary.

I have questioned and I have reached a conclusion because of that questioning. As of today I have no reason to rethink my conclusions.
I can’t control what others do and what they believe, and I can’t force them to reach the same conclusion I have. It’s the reality of a multicultural world.
And again, just because YOU see it as “supernatural” it doesn’t mean that for others it’s not a reality they believe as factual. So you really can’t tell people to see their beliefs as probably untrue and therefore not a factor just because that’s the way you see them.



I'm stunned you would rather have unsolvable conflict than even try to consider questioning your beliefs.

Is "not based on the supernatural" really too much to ask from geopolitcal decisions that affect who lives and who dies?

They may "believe it as factual" but they can't prove it. It could just as easily be wrong. That is below any standard of reason.

No set of unprovable assertions has merit over any other. Why not make geopolitical decisions based on facts on the ground that can be established?

[SallyMae]

About what?

But you also can’t prove you are right. If you can, please show me proof of why my beliefs are wrong. By your standards of “reason”, you also have no proof. Your views also fall short according to your standards of reason.
So again. You can’t tell people that YOUR “standards” for reason are more valid than theirs and therefore they should make choices according to them. Unless you can prove them.
And remember “lack of proof” isn’t proof of the contrary.

I have questioned and I have reached a conclusion because of that questioning. As of today I have no reason to rethink my conclusions.
I can’t control what others do and what they believe, and I can’t force them to reach the same conclusion I have. It’s the reality of a multicultural world.
And again, just because YOU see it as “supernatural” it doesn’t mean that for others it’s not a reality they believe as factual. So you really can’t tell people to see their beliefs as probably untrue and therefore not a factor just because that’s the way you see them.



I'm stunned you would rather have unsolvable conflict than even try to consider questioning your beliefs.

Is "not based on the supernatural" really too much to ask from geopolitcal decisions that affect who lives and who dies?

They may "believe it as factual" but they can't prove it. It could just as easily be wrong. That is below any standard of reason.

No set of unprovable assertions has merit over any other. Why not make geopolitical decisions based on facts on the ground that can be established?

[Momto2boys973]

I’m sorry, I’m probably distracted with all the cooking right now, but I don’t understand what it is your asking.
Dumb it down for me a little?

About what?

But you also can’t prove you are right. If you can, please show me proof of why my beliefs are wrong. By your standards of “reason”, you also have no proof. Your views also fall short according to your standards of reason.
So again. You can’t tell people that YOUR “standards” for reason are more valid than theirs and therefore they should make choices according to them. Unless you can prove them.
And remember “lack of proof” isn’t proof of the contrary.

They may "believe it as factual" but they can't prove it. It could just as easily be wrong. That is below any standard of reason.

No set of unprovable assertions has merit over any other. Why not make geopolitical decisions based on facts on the ground that can be established?

[Frau Holle]

Everything you mentioned had either a religious aspect, or a revolution against the religious control over a country.

To have a revolution against a king, you have to loudly voice that you no longer believe God placed him on that throne.

To fight for a religion or to fight to banish a religion is still a fight based around religion.

What are you talking about? What about The Terror of the French Revolution? Sure, a lot of it’s victims were clerics in a frenzy of anti religious sentiment, it was ultimately political in nature. Their ideology was even called “The Cult off Reason”. Want more examples? Mao Zedong, Stalin, Milosevic. All committed terrible atrocities and mass murders without being religious, quite the contrary. All were atheists.
In fact, I think even the most “religious” of conflicts has been ultimately about politics and our human nature of seizing control an power. Religion has mostly been an excuse, not the reason.

Oh nooooooo. Normal people don’t use religion to justify horrible and inhumane acts like slavery or the holocaust.

This dude sounds crazy.

Yes, they do. I can’t even think of historically relevant inhuman acts done on a large scale level that didn’t have to do with a religious reason that allowed people to think it was ok.

[SallyMae]

What claims did I make that I cannot prove?

I’m sorry, I’m probably distracted with all the cooking right now, but I don’t understand what it is your asking.
Dumb it down for me a little?

About what?

But you also can’t prove you are right. If you can, please show me proof of why my beliefs are wrong. By your standards of “reason”, you also have no proof. Your views also fall short according to your standards of reason.
So again. You can’t tell people that YOUR “standards” for reason are more valid than theirs and therefore they should make choices according to them. Unless you can prove them.
And remember “lack of proof” isn’t proof of the contrary.

[Momto2boys973]

I still think that’s a simplistic way of looking at it.
Ultimately, it’s about control and power. And that’s part of human nature. Religion has been a convenient excuse because of the variety involved, it’s always easy to find an “enemy” to gain power.
But humans will find a reason to fight even if religion didn’t exist. Because it’s in our nature. People who want to have power and influence over others, with all the comforts and advantages that brings will always find an excuse to show that power, most commonly, with atrocities and with stating an acceptable norm and stepping over those who believe differently.

Everything you mentioned had either a religious aspect, or a revolution against the religious control over a country.

To have a revolution against a king, you have to loudly voice that you no longer believe God placed him on that throne.

To fight for a religion or to fight to banish a religion is still a fight based around religion.

What are you talking about? What about The Terror of the French Revolution? Sure, a lot of it’s victims were clerics in a frenzy of anti religious sentiment, it was ultimately political in nature. Their ideology was even called “The Cult off Reason”. Want more examples? Mao Zedong, Stalin, Milosevic. All committed terrible atrocities and mass murders without being religious, quite the contrary. All were atheists.
In fact, I think even the most “religious” of conflicts has been ultimately about politics and our human nature of seizing control an power. Religion has mostly been an excuse, not the reason.

Yes, they do. I can’t even think of historically relevant inhuman acts done on a large scale level that didn’t have to do with a religious reason that allowed people to think it was ok.

[Momto2boys973]

Well, maybe I misunderstood, but you seem to claim that all those beliefs are “supernatural” and therefore false. That the only reality is what we can physically see. So those beliefs should be ignored because they can’t be proven as true.
But thing is, you can’t also prove them wrong. You said that if something can “just as well be easily wrong” then it falls into failing standards of reason.
Well, you could just as well be easily wrong too...

What claims did I make that I cannot prove?

I’m sorry, I’m probably distracted with all the cooking right now, but I don’t understand what it is your asking.
Dumb it down for me a little?

About what?

[Frau Holle]

True, which is probably why all religion should simply be left out of politics. Since no one can even agree on what truth is, we should only stick to facts when it comes to government.

Well, maybe I misunderstood, but you seem to claim that all those beliefs are “supernatural” and therefore false. That the only reality is what we can physically see. So those beliefs should be ignored because they can’t be proven as true.
But thing is, you can’t also prove them wrong. You said that if something can “just as well be easily wrong” then it falls into failing standards of reason.
Well, you could just as well be easily wrong too...

What claims did I make that I cannot prove?

I’m sorry, I’m probably distracted with all the cooking right now, but I don’t understand what it is your asking.
Dumb it down for me a little?

[SallyMae]

Momto2boys973, thank you for discussing this with me because it's an important point.

I am not claiming that your beliefs are false. I am saying that they can't be proved. They could be wrong, at least in some of the details. There is no way to establish that they are 'righter' than the supernatural beliefs of others.

That doesn't mean we have no facts at all. Plenty of stuff can be proven and established. More than enough material, I would suggest, upon which to make geopolitical decisions about who lives and who dies.

How much more unresolvable conflict should we have for supernatural claims that *could* be wrong?

Well, maybe I misunderstood, but you seem to claim that all those beliefs are “supernatural” and therefore false. That the only reality is what we can physically see. So those beliefs should be ignored because they can’t be proven as true.
But thing is, you can’t also prove them wrong. You said that if something can “just as well be easily wrong” then it falls into failing standards of reason.
Well, you could just as well be easily wrong too...

What claims did I make that I cannot prove?

I’m sorry, I’m probably distracted with all the cooking right now, but I don’t understand what it is your asking.
Dumb it down for me a little?

[Momto2boys973]

That could be it, but reality is you can’t always stick to proven facts because we can’t always agree on what a proven fact is.

True, which is probably why all religion should simply be left out of politics. Since no one can even agree on what truth is, we should only stick to facts when it comes to government.

Well, maybe I misunderstood, but you seem to claim that all those beliefs are “supernatural” and therefore false. That the only reality is what we can physically see. So those beliefs should be ignored because they can’t be proven as true.
But thing is, you can’t also prove them wrong. You said that if something can “just as well be easily wrong” then it falls into failing standards of reason.
Well, you could just as well be easily wrong too...

What claims did I make that I cannot prove?