GWB defends the Iraq War (Yes a religion thread)

[edhopper]

War Opponent:
Why are you invading Iraq?

George W Bush:
Because Sadam is behind 9/11

WO:
You have no evidence of that.

GWB:
Sure, an Iraqi met with Al Queda in Prague.

WO:
That's been shown to be false.

GWB:
He is amassing WMDs.

WO:
You have no evidence of that.

GWB:
Listen, I know he was behind 9/11 and I know in my gut that he has WMDs. I don't need proof or evidence, I just feel it. There are other ways to know things.
I have complete belief that what I'm doing is right.

WO:
Well if it's a matter of faith and belief then who am I to question it.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

1. Thomas Paine wrote that Revelation, told at second had,

is no better than hearsay. It doesn't matter how strongly Bush "knows" something, if he can't prove it, it's worthless.

[edhopper]

3. And since the Bible

is all second hand.....

[ChadwickHenryWard]

19. Actually, he was making the point about Muhammad.

He agreed that divine revelation is the most certain form of knowledge.* For Muhammad, those things told to him by Gabriel were unquestioned truth, but for anyone who did not experience the revelation directly, it was only hearsay, and could never be anything more. Now, I regard the bible as being on even less firm footing; the koran claims to be, from its first letter to its last, the revealed word of god. The bible claims to be written by men, lacking even the veneer of divine truth.

*I don't regard this as necessarily so. Hume delineated an impressive list of circumstances under which a claimant may be mistaken or lying. The list was intended to apply to mortals, but I don't see it as self-evident that god and his angels are immune from the whole set, ipso facto. And, if for no other reason, I regard revelation with skepticism because it had never been scientifically tested. We know that eye-witness testimony is the least reliable form of evidence because we have tested it empirically. I am not aware of any instance of divine revelation that could be subjected to scientific rigor.

[laconicsax]

2. K&R

[AlecBGreen]

4. you are making an assumption

i.e. he actually believed those reasons for invasion. Perhaps he was completely, knowingly full of shit.

[darkstar3]

5. Are you still talking about dubya?

Really, it could go either way...:)

[AlecBGreen]

6. be nice

:spank:

[darkstar3]

15. Believe me, after sparring with bums like the one reflected in the OP, that was nice.

;)

[cleanhippie]

8. And I make the exact same assumption about you when you tell me YOUR reasons for believing

:shrug:

[AlecBGreen]

12. I am unclear on what you mean

Do you mean a) I believe what I say or b) I am knowingly full of shit and lying through my teeth? Or c) did I misinterpret and you mean something else?

[cleanhippie]

13. Based on what you replied with about assumptions

and from you have provided about YOUR beliefs (and considering that you acknowledge that they have many contradictions and inconsistencies, so I appreciate you honesty. We don't see a lot of that here) I can say "you actually believed those reasons. Perhaps you are completely, knowingly full of shit."


My point being, you are implying that this poster just might be full of shit as his reasoning doesn't really make a lot of sense, and the same idea can be applied to you as well.

[darkstar3]

14. I think you missed the bifurcated conclusion in Alec's post.

I think he simply believes what he's saying. I don't think he's knowingly full of shit.

GWB, and his reflection on this board who shall remain unnamed...well, I'm pretty sure they're both knowingly full of shit, and that they don't really believe a single thing they say.

[AlecBGreen]

17. you dont think Im "knowingly full of shit"!?

thats the nicest thing anyone has said to me all day :loveya:

[darkstar3]

18. I believe you are honest, at least as far as I can believe that of anyone.

It's one of the reasons our conversations have been so...calm. ;)

[AlecBGreen]

16. I think you misunderstood

when I said "completely, knowingly full of shit" I was referring to GW, not the poster.

I freely admit that many of my beliefs are not logical and can be contradictory. I am comfortable with that (which must drive some people nuts, I know). That said, I would not profess to believe something if I KNEW it wasn't true.

p.s. you have a good memory if you can remember specifics about my beliefs! As someone with a memory akin to swiss cheese, that kind of recall always amazes me. My wife has that steel trap memory too, sadly :) I get in all kinds of trouble. "Well YOU said such and such on this date..."

[cleanhippie]

21. Sorry, I was not implying that "are knowingly full of shit."

I was simply trying to point out that your reasoning for you condemnation of bush could just as easily be applied to you.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

20. Well, the claims he made during his SOTU address

(i.e., detailed descriptions of the types and quantities Iraq's weapons, and their locations within Iraq) were demonstrably false, so your guess is as good as mine.

[edhopper]

7. Do you all get that I am using this

fictional dialog as a metaphor?
That we would never let someone make such claims in a political discourse.
But when it comes to religion or God, this type of reasoning is acceptable.

[laconicsax]

9. Apparently, metaphors are only recognizable in the Bible. n/t

[edhopper]

10. And even then

far too many take them literally.

[cleanhippie]

11. Well, except the ones that aren't metaphors.

And I will tell you which ones those are.