[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think rather than get caught up with just one aspect of the Christians we should look at the over all . They want to dictate what other people do…[/quote]
Like the health-care mandate? Like paying for planned parenthood? Like who a wedding cake maker has to serve? Like what must be included in the insurance coverage of religious organizations?
[/quote]
what about the health care mandate ? Like everything else in health care
?What is your point ?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
If you support even the most modest form of a social safety net, you aren’t opposed to morality in politics. [/quote]
I am not opposed to morality
Science is everything man. It’s about seeking knowledge, investigating, experimenting, all that jazz. Religion gets a bad rap because believers believe all they need to know is in the pages of a book. There’s a science to religion - who wrote the book, where did this come from, who was this person, etc. Jesus and God could be a hoax, Allah could be the real deal, Judas could have been the best 100m swimmer in the Ancient world, we just don’t know.
There’s only a problem when religion tries to halt human advancement and expansion of knowledge - that’s where a lot of the vitriol comes from. Normally, “science nerds” don’t care if you believe the world was XXXX years old, just as believers don’t care that this particle could help explain how we got here.
Believers shouldn’t be so hard on scientific hypotheses, like they always indicate confusion and lack of anything significant. Maybe stuff isn’t as plain as words on a page. There are hypotheses in religion too, look at how many religions around the world there are, from Christianity to Scientology.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
If you support even the most modest form of a social safety net, you aren’t opposed to morality in politics. [/quote]
I am not opposed to morality [/quote]
And you’re not opposed to your morality be inculcated into politics.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think rather than get caught up with just one aspect of the Christians we should look at the over all . They want to dictate what other people do…[/quote]
Like the health-care mandate? Like paying for planned parenthood? Like who a wedding cake maker has to serve? Like what must be included in the insurance coverage of religious organizations?
[/quote]
what about the health care mandate ? Like everything else in health care
?What is your point ?[/quote]
“Dictating what other people do…”
[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
Science is everything man. It’s about seeking knowledge, investigating, experimenting, all that jazz. Religion gets a bad rap because believers believe all they need to know is in the pages of a book. There’s a science to religion - who wrote the book, where did this come from, who was this person, etc. Jesus and God could be a hoax, Allah could be the real deal, Judas could have been the best 100m swimmer in the Ancient world, we just don’t know.
There’s only a problem when religion tries to halt human advancement and expansion of knowledge - that’s where a lot of the vitriol comes from. Normally, “science nerds” don’t care if you believe the world was XXXX years old, just as believers don’t care that this particle could help explain how we got here. [/quote]
I wish I had more time to contribute. Just know that science is not and never has been the absolute that you want it to be. Example:
http://www.nature.com/news/stephen-hawking-there-are-no-black-holes-1.14583
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
my morality is all about supporting life .
[/quote]
This is an outright lie. Your posts in any of the abortion threads tend to prove that.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Really dude?[/quote]
Yes, really. I see this talking point a lot, and it tends to fall flat on its face when asked about.
Not only did a Democrat sign this bill, it was supported, strongly, throughout not only congress, but in a couple of states that allowed the citizens to vote on it.
People at like this was a Christian thing, when the numbers suggest it was less a “Christian thing” and more just a “hey, no one wants this” thing.
And for like the 365,487th time, SCOTUS overturned Clinton’s bill. It is a moot point.
What legislation was passed to limit contraception?
As for abortion, there are about a million a year. So, logic would dictate about half of those million would be women at some point. How is trying to give this child a chance to grow up and (apparently in lefty world you have to earn your “right” to abortion by surviving your term in womb) not giving her the opportunity to “do what she wants with her body”.
That whole “let her do what she wants with her body” argument is flawed by the fact that half the abortions kill females. This is clear as day, and can’t be refuted. But go ahead and try and justify it, it is always entertaining to watch.
So… I’ve heard this a lot, but can you provide a link that shows legislation that removes the teaching of the things you mention and has schools only teaching “creationism”?
Or are they trying to teach both?
Is this a majority of school districts? Is it a minority? How many places is this happening? Is it happening on a federal level?
Again, I’ve not seen any laws banning books trying to be passed. Do you have a link to the story?
While this is vile, and the people involved in such an activity are horrid people, this is a total fallacy. This has zero to do with the topic.
Yeah, again, I don’t really agree…
It’s “pretty fucking obvious” you have bones to pick with religion’s organization, and that is fine. But opinion and fact are separate things.
[/quote]
LOL did ya’ll see that part where Beans pointed out that a Democrat signed the bill, even though we weren’t talking about Repubs/Dems, as if the Repubs have a monopoly on christianity? LOL that was funny…
dat ad hom lol
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
How about we skip the obvious ones like banning homosexuals from marriage[/quote]
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Not only did a Democrat sign this bill, it was supported, strongly, throughout not only congress, but in a couple of states that allowed the citizens to vote on it.
People at like this was a Christian thing, when the numbers suggest it was less a “Christian thing” and more just a “hey, no one wants this” thing.
And for like the 365,487th time, SCOTUS overturned Clinton’s bill. It is a moot point.
[/quote]
Ummmm SCOTUS overturned DOMA which was a federal bill. I love how you say that its a moot point like, “welp that settles it…no longer any more gay marriage debate to be had here LULZ”. I can’t tell if you intentionally or unintentionally omitted what is going on at the state and local levels?
you think the opposition to gay marriage is just because “oh nobody wants this” and NOT religious based? Holy shit you LITERALLY have your head up your ass.
Check out this fun post from one of the local TV news statiosn back where I grew up on their report that VA’s new Attorney General will no longer defend the state’s voter approved amendment against gay marriage:
Close to 1,000 posts and God or The Bible or Jeebus or the Flying Spaghetti monster is mentioned in, ballpark figure here, 80% of them. You will find conversation about the US Constitution, DOMA, or any other topics that SHOULD be part of the debate in a non-theocratic United States to be sparse at best.
Beans I’m not saying you’re a bad dude or anything but you really have no fucking idea what you are talking about.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
I find it amusing when people accuse Christians of ignoring science and refer to Creationism or Noah’s flood as proof of that. Then ignore the glaring hypocrisy of secular science such as when they say the giant canyon on Mars, which is the length of the entire U.S., was caused by flooding in an apparent short period of time but then say Grand Canyon could not have been caused in the same manner. But let’s continue to say fossils are this old because they are found in this layer of rocks and say these rocks are this old because these fossils were found in these rocks.
But hey, feel free to believe you are nothing more than the product of a chimp screwing pig.
[/quote]
LOL and you weren’t at all embarrassed to post this…that was great!
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
Beans I’m not saying you’re a bad dude [/quote]
You can say whatever you like. It is irrelevant to me.
You’re pathetic. You troll the internet. You can’t help but call people names and insult them. What you think of me, has less consequence than a fart in church.
This will be my last response to you, enjoy.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
Beans I’m not saying you’re a bad dude [/quote]
You can say whatever you like. It is irrelevant to me.
You’re pathetic. You troll the internet. You can’t help but call people names and insult them. What you think of me, has less consequence than a fart in church.
This will be my last response to you, enjoy. [/quote]
DAT AD HOM!!!
Just remember kids, peoples’ rights aren’t being restricted because of religious biases, it’s because, well, shucks, its just that nobody really wants it!
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
my morality is all about supporting life .
[/quote]
This is an outright lie. Your posts in any of the abortion threads tend to prove that. [/quote]
this is where we disagree, I think life is more valuable after it is born rather than when the sperm meets the egg
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
Beans I’m not saying you’re a bad dude [/quote]
You can say whatever you like. It is irrelevant to me.
You’re pathetic. You troll the internet. You can’t help but call people names and insult them. What you think of me, has less consequence than a fart in church.
This will be my last response to you, enjoy. [/quote]
DAT AD HOM!!!
Just remember kids, peoples’ rights aren’t being restricted because of religious biases, it’s because, well, shucks, its just that nobody really wants it![/quote]
Every time you take a shit in the middle of a thread I cannot help but remember Jewbacca’s reply:
+++++++++++++++++++
As a further aside, you made a number of personal attacks. It is clear you hate being shown up.
I’d don’t mean this ugly, but I can tell you are a smart guy, but pretty much a failure at life. And no, I don’t mean “a complete loser,” but you clearly failed to live up to yout potential.
I’ve seen shades of you a hundred times. Sometimes even associates who we hire that chaff under the hard work and drugery of being a baby lawyer.
Indeed, I have a niece who is a MENSA member, like you.
She had a 1500 SAT, but B- student is school. She didn’t get into an Ivy League school – went to Boston College. She was a B- student in college, dropped out, and now a night manager at some hotel.
Dates a fat guy who drifts between assistant rabbi jobs who is also a MENSA member.
Like you, she’s a rabid liberal Democrat.
Like her, instead of looking to yourself and actually working hard, you are hostile to those that succeed, thinking yourself superior to them — and yet they do better at you in life, probably in all respects.
The reason you hate conservatism is it requires, above-all, personal responsibility. To someone like you, who SHOULD have been great, personal responsibility is the last thing you want, because you would have to recognize the reason you are a nobody – despite the great potential of your intellect – are your bad life choices.
Similarly, you like liberalism, because it tears down the successful who work hard. You envy and hate the successful. (Actually, the correct word is “chamad,” and makes its apperance in the 10th commandment.) Because of your “chamad” you enjoy them being victims of theft, and you undoubtedly justify it to yourself.
In short, you are a perfect foot soldier for the Democrats.
Smart, but resentful. Full of hate and envy — of chamad. Fearful of having to be answerable for your actions, and thus a willingly dependent slave of your masters.
It’s a sad way to go through life, and I feel very bad for you.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
my morality is all about supporting life .
[/quote]
This is an outright lie. Your posts in any of the abortion threads tend to prove that. [/quote]
this is where we disagree, I think life is more valuable after it is born rather than when the sperm meets the egg
[/quote]
Then you don’t “support life” you selectively support what you feel is worth your support. As in, you support it when you feel it is worth supporting, not because of some determining factor.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think rather than get caught up with just one aspect of the Christians we should look at the over all . They want to dictate what other people do , they piss and moan how they are under attack , while they are clearly the aggressor . There is nothing in their policies that are what I would call righteous , other than calling themselves so [/quote]
Lol at the guy that just talked about wanting to force his morality regarding healthcare on others.[/quote]
Call me what ever you like , I could give a FUCKK:) my morality is all about forcing other people to supporting life as I see fit. Unborn and Ancient
[/quote]
Fixed that for you.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
I find it amusing when people accuse Christians of ignoring science and refer to Creationism or Noah’s flood as proof of that. Then ignore the glaring hypocrisy of secular science such as when they say the giant canyon on Mars, which is the length of the entire U.S., was caused by flooding in an apparent short period of time but then say Grand Canyon could not have been caused in the same manner. But let’s continue to say fossils are this old because they are found in this layer of rocks and say these rocks are this old because these fossils were found in these rocks.
But hey, feel free to believe you are nothing more than the product of a chimp screwing pig.
[/quote]
Well argued. That that one guy proposed that one thing is definitely proof that the entire establishment of evolutionary biology is full of shit.
A less understanding observer than myself might invite you to go on believing that a perfect being with a distaste for homosexual sex and an on-the-record opinion about the proper way to cut the extra skin off a trousersnake zapped a pile of clay a few thousand years ago and voila![/quote]
So, you admit that it’s equally plausible? [/quote]
In the same way that it is as plausible that I am dreaming and that the universe as I know it does not exist as that I am not and it does.
That is, if we’re talking philosophical certainty, yeah, go ahead and call it all equally plausible.
Then again, if you think the universe might just be a decades-long dream you’re having, you might want to check your ass for signs that your head is stuck inside it.
Edit: I wrote this before your edit. The Spaghetti monster thing is simply burden of proof. It has little to do with my point, which was that cherry-picking the dumbest shit in your opponent’s catalog is a pretty dishonest way of going about things.
But yeah, obviously I don’t believe that Adam and Eve were real people.[/quote]
But it is to the point. I don’t mean philosophically, I mean factually. The root of the argument is infinite regress versus causation. For which, there can be no proof on either side. You can approach the question through rationality, (to which I think causation has the edge, but we can call them equally factually plausible). Given causation in general is equally factually plausible to unending regress, all initial conditions for the causation side are equally factually plausible. That includes the universe being 10 minutes, or days, or years, or millennia old. The factual odds that it would start trillions of years ago with conditions and rules that would eventually lead to exactly the present state, versus the universe starting in its’ present state are completely factually, statistically equivalent.
“Science” people don’t seem to get contentions if causation is proposed in the big bang time area, but talk about it being closer to modern day (an equally logically valid position) and they generally lose their heads.
Creationism, and even the literal Adam and Eve story, are at root, on equal rational footing with evolution. [/quote]
That uncertainty is present in either case–in every case–does not mean that one cannot stand on firmer ground than another.
And the argument may or may not be “causation” vs. “infinite regress,” but Adam and Eve are necessarily implied in exactly neither of those alternatives. I, for example, am an agnostic theist–a person who says that he thinks that a God, and therefore a creator, exists–and yet I think Genesis is nonsense.
However, I do find it interesting that you say this:
[quote]
The root of the argument is infinite regress versus causation. For which, there can be no proof on either side.[/quote]
Because in another sprawling thread about proofs of God, I am arguing something very similar.[/quote]
We really aren’t that far apart. I just happen to think that the truth always seems to be something you wouldn’t ever guess at (referencing modern physics and the like here). And to me, that makes the Jesus story at least as plausible as what I read about in science text books. I do believe without a doubt that there is a cause though.
As for proof, I haven’t read the other thread. Proof implies concreteness. Causation for the universe naturally falls outside that category. A fact is something that by definition is of this reality, a cause is by definition not part of this reality. Even if causation is True in the bigger sense, it doesn’t make sense to me to call it a fact, because it isn’t an event by our definition. It doesn’t have a time or place, because it would be what created time and space.
[quote]JEATON wrote:
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
Beans I’m not saying you’re a bad dude [/quote]
You can say whatever you like. It is irrelevant to me.
You’re pathetic. You troll the internet. You can’t help but call people names and insult them. What you think of me, has less consequence than a fart in church.
This will be my last response to you, enjoy. [/quote]
DAT AD HOM!!!
Just remember kids, peoples’ rights aren’t being restricted because of religious biases, it’s because, well, shucks, its just that nobody really wants it![/quote]
Every time you take a shit in the middle of a thread I cannot help but remember Jewbacca’s reply:
+++++++++++++++++++
As a further aside, you made a number of personal attacks. It is clear you hate being shown up.
I’d don’t mean this ugly, but I can tell you are a smart guy, but pretty much a failure at life. And no, I don’t mean “a complete loser,” but you clearly failed to live up to yout potential.
I’ve seen shades of you a hundred times. Sometimes even associates who we hire that chaff under the hard work and drugery of being a baby lawyer.
Indeed, I have a niece who is a MENSA member, like you.
She had a 1500 SAT, but B- student is school. She didn’t get into an Ivy League school – went to Boston College. She was a B- student in college, dropped out, and now a night manager at some hotel.
Dates a fat guy who drifts between assistant rabbi jobs who is also a MENSA member.
Like you, she’s a rabid liberal Democrat.
Like her, instead of looking to yourself and actually working hard, you are hostile to those that succeed, thinking yourself superior to them — and yet they do better at you in life, probably in all respects.
The reason you hate conservatism is it requires, above-all, personal responsibility. To someone like you, who SHOULD have been great, personal responsibility is the last thing you want, because you would have to recognize the reason you are a nobody – despite the great potential of your intellect – are your bad life choices.
Similarly, you like liberalism, because it tears down the successful who work hard. You envy and hate the successful. (Actually, the correct word is “chamad,” and makes its apperance in the 10th commandment.) Because of your “chamad” you enjoy them being victims of theft, and you undoubtedly justify it to yourself.
In short, you are a perfect foot soldier for the Democrats.
Smart, but resentful. Full of hate and envy — of chamad. Fearful of having to be answerable for your actions, and thus a willingly dependent slave of your masters.
It’s a sad way to go through life, and I feel very bad for you.
[/quote]
lol Thanks Jerry, I had almost forgotten about Jewbacca’s folksy anecdotes about people he knew in real life and how they might pertain to some anonymous guy he saw on the internet and was able to make all 'dem connections from a few posts on a bullshit subforum that the poster regards as a zoo/joke. JB’s words warrant even more consideration, because, he is a millionaire/ex special forces/all around great guy–this is verified from what he has said on the internet!!! And little minions on the internet just LOVE guys like that because one day they too can be so awesome at internetting!!!
Everybody loves folksy anecdotes!