PC Getting (even more) Out of Hand

[ElfDude]

Herein lies my problem with religion (note that I have nothing against god or people that believe - they go their way, I go mine. At least, that's how it should be).

The main thing that I object to is the sort of thing that happened to me a couple of years ago.

So... all organized religion is bogus because a couple of loud-mouthed women chewed you out?

You know, I've run into some really obnoxious people at Rush concerts. Does that mean I should ditch all of my Rush LP's, CD's, DVD's, etc.? Obviously they're a bad thing with which to be associated if their fans could behave like THAT!

I know that came out snotty sounding, though I didn't mean it to. But let's be reasonable man... there is no organization on this earth that I can think of that doesn't contain a few zealots.

[Slaine mac Roth]

Those two women are the worst examples I have given. I can give you thousands more - from the ones who try to ban rock music and science fiction to the teacher at my school who put someone in detention for saying he was an atheist to the Inquisition and Witch Burnings in European history to the Crusades to the destruction of the Mayan Civilisation by the Spanish to the protestant supression of the Catholics under Elizabeth I to the Catholic supression of the Protestants under Queen Mary. The list goes on.

Look at it how you like, but the history of organised religion is steeped in blood.

A person's faith is a harmless thing and, quite probably, a source of comfort to then. A few people together are an added source of comfort and a source of companionship.

When you get into the realm of thousands or millions, it's only a short step to mob rule.

I will concede that in many of these cases Religion was used as an excuse but it is up to the ordinary people to ensure that their personal religion is not misused in this way.

[Panacea]

The main thing that I object to is the sort of thing that happened to me a couple of years ago. I was talking to a friend of mine (who is a committed christian0 when we were joined by two women who attend the same church as he. After complimenting me on how beautiful my two children were, they discovered I was not married to the mother (I am now). Even though they had met me me about five minutes earlier, they proceeded to lecture me at length on how disgusting and wrong my behaviour was and what a poor example I was setting for my children (the oldest was about 2 at the time).

I'm sorry that happened to you, Slaine. Those women were very rude!! We all have a right to choose, and if you chose at that time not to be married, no one has the right to lecture you otherwise. Their problem wasn't that they belonged to a religion, but that they were rude, pushy, and arrogant. They just falsely attributed their behavior to their belief in God.

I know that the argument has been advanced about the intrepretation of god's intentions by his followers but, if he does exist, then surely he shopuld take some responsibility for their actions.

After all, as a father, I am held accountable for what my children do.

Sure, we parents are all held accountable for what our children do. However, we cannot MAKE our children make wise choices when we are not around. We can only teach them the best way we know how and hope that when they are away from us they make choices that better themselves and the people around them.

[awip2062]

Then I began to look around the world and saw what was happening and was unable to reconcile faith with experience and reality.

The only way for there to be a G-d and for us not to see these things happen is (1) for G-d to remove our freewill and force us all to be nice, or (2) for Him to destroy us all.

[Devil's Advocate]

2079? The Book of Mormon was written in the 19th century!

It was translated in the 19th century.

Uh-huh. Has it ever been published in its original "language" so it can be scrutinised by linguists?

That surely would be the acid test as to whether Joseph Smith translated it or composed it.

I don't think that's what happened. I'm not familiar with the way DNA evidence was presented in the OJ case, but the way it usually goes is that the expert presenting the evidence is asked for the odds that the DNA match is with the wrong person, and they answer something like a million to one.

Which seems at first glance to be rock-solid.

But then you ask: what's the population of the country (or even city) where the crime occured. Compare the answer to the "million to one" odds, and you'll find that your rock-solid DNA evidence could match quite a few people in the area.

That's the ODDS, not actual matches. If I happen to like a unique combination of foods, or some relatively obscure poet, what are the odds I'd find someone in my city that has the same tastes? It might be a million to one, which could mean three people or whatever, but that doesn't mean I'd actually find three people. I might not find anyone or I might find five people. Those are just the odds.

Since only identical twins share the same DNA, if two samples match in a test using a large number of markers, it's pretty conclusive. The more markers in common, the smaller the likelihood that it's someone else.

They don't use the full DNA sequence. But yes, if you use enough markers, you get odds of a million to one of matching the wrong person.

After all, what are the odds that out of a possible three people (or whatever) the odds may predict having that same combination, that it's NOT that person?

Not sure I understand the question.

Factor in the high probability of contamination - it was OJ's home, after all, so his DNA would have been present, whether he was guilty or not.

I think it was the other person's blood on his socks that was the determinant for me. His DNA all over the place is obvious, but how he could get Ronald Goldman's blood on his socks is a question I can't answer.

Okay, that's different - I assumed it was OJ's own DNA they were testing for.

But again, DNA testing the blood doesn't prove it was Goldman's blood. It may well prove it was not OJ's blood, which would beg the questions: whose is it, and how did it get there.


Wasn't there some talk of evidence having been tampered with? I don't remember. I do recall that the prosecution case was weakened by proof of racism amongst the police who'd worked on the case.

[ElfDude]

2079? The Book of Mormon was written in the 19th century!

It was translated in the 19th century.

Uh-huh. Has it ever been published in its original "language" so it can be scrutinised by linguists?

That surely would be the acid test as to whether Joseph Smith translated it or composed it.

Ah... so we ARE going to attack the faiths of individuals. Well, I've answered this accusation countless times, and it ain't difficult. But, as stated before, I'm not going into it here. So, I'm outta this thread. You folks have fun.

See you elsewhere.

[rushlight]

This isn't an attack on anybody Elfie. D.A. is just giving an opinion. He may not be a religious man but he likes to discuss (mainly debate) about religion or politics. Let's just ease up on this debate and go for something lighter.

[Devil's Advocate]

Uh-huh. Has it ever been published in its original "language" so it can be scrutinised by linguists?

That surely would be the acid test as to whether Joseph Smith translated it or composed it.

Ah... so we ARE going to attack the faiths of individuals. Well, I've answered this accusation countless times, and it ain't difficult. But, as stated before, I'm not going into it here. So, I'm outta this thread. You folks have fun.

See you elsewhere.

Uhhhhh what? What attack did I make? You cannot deny that the authenticity of the Book of Mormon has been called into question, ever since it first... appeared. My comment merely offered a means by which that question could be answered. How does that constitute an attack?