Philosophy Now Forum

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Is that why you have not answered this?

It would be a fool's errand to answer the topic, just like answering the question "is water wet"? ..it's a very silly question and should be self-explanatory.

We should remove all religion as it's based on outdated superstition.

David Handeye wrote:[

Is it?

Or would it be a father forbidding his children from gaining an education and remaining basically as bright as bricks and too stupid to even know they are naked?

If you are a parent, which standard would you enforce with your children?

Would you advise then to remain blind, or would you tell them to disregard what is a really stupid command?

Regards
DL

As a parent I would teach them. I wouldn't let them learning by themselves.[/quote]

Now compare your actions to God's who put Satan in Eden as the talking snake to insure that A & E learned on their own.

I suggest that you are a way better parent than God.

Regards
DL

HexHammer wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Is that why you have not answered this?

It would be a fool's errand to answer the topic, just like answering the question "is water wet"? ..it's a very silly question and should be self-explanatory.

We should remove all religion as it's based on outdated superstition.

And replace it with what to assuage our natural hivish natures that demand fellowship?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T64_El2s7FU

Even atheists are building churches to assuage this need in their children to save them from religions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Oe6HUgrRlQ

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:

HexHammer wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Is that why you have not answered this?

It would be a fool's errand to answer the topic, just like answering the question "is water wet"? ..it's a very silly question and should be self-explanatory.

We should remove all religion as it's based on outdated superstition.

And replace it with what to assuage our natural hivish natures that demand fellowship?


Regards
DL

Religion does not serve any function that requires replacement.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Religion does not serve any function that requires replacement.

Then you either don't know what's going on in USA, or doesn't comprehend it.

HexHammer wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Religion does not serve any function that requires replacement.

Then you either don't know what's going on in USA, or doesn't comprehend it.

No, you meant to say "Then you either don't know what's going on in USA, or do not comprehend it."

What I see in the USA everyday is people freeing themselves of the church and returning to a natural morality.

HexHammer wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Is that why you have not answered this?

It would be a fool's errand to answer the topic, just like answering the question "is water wet"? ..it's a very silly question and should be self-explanatory.

We should remove all religion as it's based on outdated superstition.

Water isn't wet, it makes other things wet.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Water isn't wet, it makes other things wet.

Water IS wet and ALSO makes other things wet.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:What I see in the USA everyday is people freeing themselves of the church and returning to a natural morality.

Have you seen the fanatism that reign in the religious environment?

HexHammer wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Water isn't wet, it makes other things wet.

Water IS wet and ALSO makes other things wet.

It's NOT.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

HexHammer wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Water isn't wet, it makes other things wet.

Water IS wet and ALSO makes other things wet.

It's NOT.

Hmmm? Why would water not be wet in itself?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:[

And replace it with what to assuage our natural hivish natures that demand fellowship?


Regards
DL

Religion does not serve any function that requires replacement.[/quote]

That is not what leading atheists are saying. If it was, they would not bother opening schools.

You might listen to the links I put above and perhaps think a bit more on why atheists are doing what they are doing.

Regards
DL

HexHammer wrote:Hmmm? Why would water not be wet in itself?

Wet is the effect that water has on dry objects. You might as well say that fire is 'burnt'.

Greatest I am wrote: As a parent I would teach them. I wouldn't let them learning by themselves.

Now compare your actions to God's who put Satan in Eden as the talking snake to insure that A & E learned on their own.

I suggest that you are a way better parent than God.

Regards
DL

It becomes obvious that you are not a parent, there are some lessons that you can teach, and some that you must allow them to learn for themselves. Would you teach them to ride a horse by telling them about it, or would you arrange for riding lessons knowing that they might fall off once in awhile.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

HexHammer wrote:Hmmm? Why would water not be wet in itself?

Wet is the effect that water has on dry objects. You might as well say that fire is 'burnt'.

That makes no sense, my hands are moist and I can still feel wetness, when I have very dry hands my hands still gets wet and the same feel.

And the "wetness" will change behavior depending on the hardness of the water.

Besides even if my definition is wrong my deeper point should still remain and be understood, if you don't understand my deeper point even tho it's wrong, then it's on you, not me.