Should we ban Elton John's music completely? Or, should we just bar his songs from, say, 1980 onward? Circle of Life? Sacrifice? Can You Feel the Love Tonight? This is the kind of noise totalitarian regimes pump into concentration camps. The Elton John complete ban/ban post-1980 controversy is the debate serious people were having until Mr. Elton John-Furnish derailed the conversation. "I would ban religion completely," the singer told a British music magazine. Why? Because major religions take a negative view of homosexuality and Elton John, well, doesn't. Doesn't he watch South Park? It settled this question in earlier this month.

True, more people need to shut up.
http://www.townonline.com/newton/opinion/view.bg?articleid=610359

I wouldn't ban 'em.

But I sure wouldn't cry if they suddenly disapeared.

All religion are just silly bronze-age myths.

I'm not a big fan of Elton John, but his song Original Sin (1990ish) is his best ever.

HeHe watch the south Park episode, then watch it again maybe something will sink in. You Godless fool.

You see, it’s not enough that people understand Elton John and his ilk’s preferences and accept, or at least tolerate, their alternative lifestyles. More proof that, like using the race card, this group wants to continue to keep people on the offensive.

Until people don’t react to this kind of social blackmail, they won’t stop.

So he is intolerant of religion because religion is intolerant. Irony?

Yes I am the fool because I don't believe in some
old fairy tales!

I'm the fool because I don't think its possible to walk on water.

I'm the fool becauase I don't think its possible for a virgin to have a baby.

I'm the fool because I don't think its possible for a man to be killed on a cross, buried and come back to life.

Yeah. I suppose not beleiving in these ridiculous stories makes me the fool.

Oh yeah and Matt and Trey I gather think I'm a cultural elitist.

And you know those guys are prophets.

Religion is a foolish, childish fantasy land where an ever-present parent watches over us and controls our life.

I'm an adult.

I don't need a "father" or a "god" to watch over me and do things for me.

I'm an adult.

I take care of myself.

Religion is a childish fantasy.

Tell us more about what your feelings on religion are.

Yeah, it's a fairy tale for you until at some point in your life you need it.

Then is will be: "Oh God, please save me! Please forgive me! Please help me!"

HaHa, HeHe.

Acually asdf no.

Not everyone needs religion to get through hard times.

In fact most of humanity doesn't pray to your god.

Not many people in China or Inida (40% of humanity) have ever heard of jesus.

They don't "need" him, and they don't beg to him.

The only people who do that are those that have been conditioned from birth to fear this god of yours.

Talkin' about the diety, aka, God. Pretty sure that most Chinese and Indians (and the Inidas too) believe in God. Yes, outside of the few Christians in that part of the world, I too would be surprised if they asked Hjesus for assistance.

Interesting though, you seem to be the only one here who is constantly obsessed by the existence of Christianity and religion in general. If one didn't know better, it might be observed that the inferred presence of Christ scares you more than it does your garden variety Christian.

HaHa, HeHe.

Well, I do like to debate right wingers on the subject of religion.

I suppose I might be "obsessed" with that.

But I don't think too much of religion in my daily life.

Most Chinese actualy do NOT believe in god. God hasn't really existed in their culture. The closest thing they have to religion is "ancestor worship" and Confusionism. Some people are Buhddist and there are even a few muslims, but they are in the minority.

Indians have diverse beliefs, but there is no monothesitc Indian religion, so they don't quite beleive in a "god".

The vast majority of Indians are either Hindu or Muslim, meaning the large majority of Hindus pray to either Brahman or Allah.

Christianity is currently exploding in China and North Korea, so that claim just isn't accurate.

As for the claim that something is impossible on the grounds that you have never seen it occur, it is not logical. It is an example of what the (atheist) philosopher David Hume called "causal inference".

The large majority of Indians pray to either Brahman or Allah*

Ah.... more philosophical bullsh*t!

Good to see you Ben-T.

Yes you are correct. It is technically not impossible that Jesus walked on water.

When I say "impossible" I mean that, given what we know about the laws of physics it is "extremely unlikely to the point of virtual impossibility."

I mean that in order for it to be possible, our entire understanding of the universe would have to be wrong. In order for it to be possible the same science that allows us to communicate through the Interet, that allows CD's to store information, and that took us to the moon would have to be wrong.

It's not impossible for Jesus to have walked on water.

And its not impossible that there is a omnicient, omnipresent god that reads our thoughts and guides us in our lives.

But both cases are ETREMELY unlikely.

And one is not a "fool" if he chooses to disbelieve these fariy tales. For indeed, they are very improbable.

Once again Ben-T you hide behind the pale fascade of philosophy and mangle terminology to change the definition of what I say.

Its the only way you can win the argument.

Now as to your other points, India does have about 100 million Muslims that do indeed have a god.

I don't know enough about Hinduism to say for sure, but I'm pretty sure its not monothesitc.

And as for Christianity "exploding" in China, dream on. There many be a couple tens of millions, but that's a drop in the bucket. And the government is not about to let that drop get much bigger.

Leftists like HeHe don't need a "father" or a "god" to watch over them and do things for them; that's what governments are for.

Well then HeHaw, I would be willing to bet that most "right wingers" think about religion just about as much as you do.

And ya' know, I don't find anybody but you consistenly bringing it up on this or other blogs.

You're probably right about the Chinese not believing in God. That would probably explain all of those temples and churches in China being used as fast food restaurants.

Actually, Nobody I'm as much against the welfare state as you, I imagine.

I believe in the ideas of Adam Smith. That men and women should look after themselves and do what's in thier own best intrest.

There is a role for government, but a nanny state is every bit the threat to human freedom as a paternalisitc imaginary friend.

At least the nanny state would be real though, not a childish fantasy.

There is a differene between a temple and a god.

Like I said, those temples are used for things like Confusian anestor worship and burial.

They aren't used to pray to an imaginary friend.

Of all people who need imaginary friends.

With or without religion, H-H will live and die smug, lonely, and miserable.

And how would you know that?

From my polemical musings here?

please.

Don't hate cuz i preach the truth on religion boy.

I suppose I can understand why Sir Elton only believes in MEN and not God. ;-)~

lol

"Once again Ben-T you hide behind the pale fascade of philosophy and mangle terminology to change the definition of what I say.

Its the only way you can win the argument." -HeHe

Strawman and ad hominem are logical fallacies.

I'm sorry, am I "Hiding" behind logic? I guess hiding behind logic is the only way I can win the argument.

Whoa.

Adressing my remarks to you is not ad hominem.

And no you're not using logic when you take my words out of context.

Yes, youe logic is correct. It is logically possible for Jesus to have walked on water.

But I it is so improbable (ever heard of pobability?) that it justifies the use of the word "impossible" in the everyday, non-philosophial sense.

Again this is just another case where you fail to recognize that words have different meanings in different contexts.

Imagine a friend of yours telling you that your brother just got married to a dog.

"That's impossible!" you respond.

Well, logically it is possible.

But anyone with any sense would know what you mean to say. You mean to say that it is 'so improbable as to be virtually impossible'.

By the same token anyone with any sense should know what I mean when I say jesus walking on water is impossible. I mean to say that it is 'so improbable as to be virtualy impossible'.

But I use the word "impossible" to save time and because in the everyday sense it carries the same meaning.

To take that word of mine and assign it its more literal philosophical meaning chages the nature of my words.

Only when you have comitted this act of intellecual dishonesty do my arguments fall apart.

You have done this time and time again.

You have taken a word or phrase I have said, assigned it a meaning other than the one intended and then applied your logic against that meaning.

"Behaviour" for instance clearly has a different meaning in a scientific context than in a philosophical one.

But that didn't stop you from mangling my words to mean something else. Something you could argue against.

You seem not to understand that words are just symbols. And that it different contexts thier meanings can radically change.

I don't mean that as a personal attack, it is evident in your argument.

Your logic may be sound, but you 'win' by applying that logic to a non-existant argument.

Actually it would be logically impossible for a man to marry a dog, since the very concept of marriage denotes a contract between a male human and a female human. It is logically impossible for a marriage to exist between any other coupling, since it would break the definition of the concept of marriage.

You have no argument here. As usual, by the end of the debate you are trying to cover up your intellectually sloppy tactics by whining and moaning about how other posters are being mean to you.

Are you serious??

You mean to tell me its impossible that in the time since you had last seen your brother the state government decided to extend the right of marriage to human-dog couples?

Is that really impossible Ben-T?

Highly unlikely yes.

Our defintions of marriage change over time Ben-T.

Marriage used to be defiend as a union between two individuals of the same race.

But leave marriage aside.

It could be have sex with a dog. Or killed a dog (your brother is an animal lover).

Anything that is highly unlikely.

And f*uck you I have sloppy tactics.

I just won the argument you little biatch.

And all you can come up with is a ad-hominim attack that I'm "whining".

STFU you prissy frat boy.

If you fight like you argue you shouldn't be using fightin' words.

As humans, and thus as higher thinking animals, we have the need to be organized and to manage our surroundings by creating and maintaining rules. Hard definitions and rules don't go changing at the whim of a select minority whenever some people think it’s a good time to change them. Without this concept, there is chaos. Which, it appears that many libs are working toward on any given day to satisfy the wants of a few. As the liberal high priest of definition bending once said (under oath): It depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is.

HeHe proves my points for me so well.

I do thank you, troll.

It really comes down to parsimony, economy of explanation. It is possible that your car engine is driven by psychokinetic energy, but if it looks like a petrol engine, smells like a petrol engine and performs exactly as well as a petrol engine, the sensible working hypothesis is that it is a petrol engine. Telepathy and possession by the spirits of the dead are not ruled out as a matter of principle. There is certainly nothing impossible about abduction by aliens in UFOs. One day it may be happen. But on grounds of probability it should be kept as an explanation of last resort. It is unparsimonious, demanding more than routinely weak evidence before we should believe it. If you hear hooves clip-clopping down a London street, it could be a zebra or even a unicorn, but, before we assume that it's anything other than a horse, we should demand a certain minimal standard of evidence.