PDA

View Full Version : check the European votes for US President.



Pages : [1] 2 3

prometheus
10-06-2008, 06:54 PM
can be fun...or not.

at the upper left corner over the earthglobe theres an option to choose and see european votings..pick country(välj land).

http://specials.se.msn.com/nyheter/vote/default.aspx

The real votes are up to you Americans as it should be I guess.
Have fun.

Michael

Bog
10-07-2008, 02:30 PM
I'm probably over-reacting, but I do get a strong urge to shout at people sometimes. I kept admirably calm for decades of English people babbling on about what America should do, and how Americans should be different and more like Brits.

But really, it does rankle that so much of the world likes expressing it's opinion of what America should be, and should do. If England had fought a bit harder over it a few hundred years ago, then the opinion would be valid. As it is, it's the nosy next-door neighbour telling me how to prune my azaleas whether I want them to or not.

So please, Europe. Do bugger off and mind your own beeswax.

</curmudgeon>

shrox
10-07-2008, 02:33 PM
One thing about that poll, the number of people that took it is not shown, so just one person voting in Xland comes up as 100% for Obamacain.

Bog
10-07-2008, 02:37 PM
Wonder what the reaction would be to a state-by-state map voting on European referenda. Probably along the lines of "typical bloody arrogant Yanks telling us what to do!"

Sorry that's really given me the grump.

shrox
10-07-2008, 02:42 PM
Wonder what the reaction would be to a state-by-state map voting on European referenda. Probably along the lines of "typical bloody arrogant Yanks telling us what to do!"

Sorry that's really given me the grump.

I think the proper term should be "Typical bloody imperialist Yanks telling us what to do, and they're right, because they've got might."

I was born and raised in Arizona, so I am far tougher than any northern Yankee or southern Rebel. I loved saying that in North Carolina, everybody would just grumble and shuffle away...

I love the US, but we are not the center of the world anymore.

Medi8or
10-07-2008, 02:43 PM
So please, Europe. Do bugger off and mind your own beeswax.Why? The great US of A likes to meddle in other countries affairs in all sorts of ways, so why can't we even be allowed to express our opinions?
Your politics doesn't only affect you americans.

Lightwolf
10-07-2008, 02:47 PM
Wonder what the reaction would be to a state-by-state map voting on European referenda.
Hey, I'd welcome it as it would show a certain level of interest (Heck, they even show the US presidential debates live over here).

It might also stop blunders like mixing up Bayreuth and Beirut ;)

Cheers,
Mike

shrox
10-07-2008, 02:49 PM
...It might also stop blunders like mixing up Bayreuth and Beirut ;)

Cheers,
Mike

That was very funny!

Lightwolf
10-07-2008, 03:07 PM
That was very funny!
It would be if it wasn't true. That was in the 80ies though - and some opera/Wagner lovers were apparently afraid of the bombs.

Then again, I've got a few stories like that.

Cheers,
Mike

Bog
10-07-2008, 03:16 PM
Hey, I'd welcome it as it would show a certain level of interest (Heck, they even show the US presidential debates live over here).

It might also stop blunders like mixing up Bayreuth and Beirut ;)

Well, that's the new laptop christened with a spray of coffee... :D :D :D

Iain
10-07-2008, 03:33 PM
Hey, I'd welcome it as it would show a certain level of interest


Quite. How many average Americans even know the names of our Prime Ministers and Chancellors?
Some interest in foreign affairs other than 'who to take on next' would be very refreshing.

Also, when you are the aggressively pursuant numero uno of anything, let alone the world's nations, you should expect some close scrutiny.

Couple that scrutiny with the most bewildering political/religious circus imaginable and of course people will jeer.

Bog
10-07-2008, 03:44 PM
Quite. How many average Americans even know the names of our Prime Ministers and Chancellors?
Some interest in foreign affairs other than 'who to take on next' would be very refreshing.

Probably the same number as Europeans who know who the governors of the States are, to be honest. Turnabout's fair play -


Also, when you are the aggressively pursuant numero uno of anything, let alone the world's nations, you should expect some close scrutiny.

Couple that scrutiny with the most bewildering political/religious circus imaginable and of course people will jeer.

Yep. And when you jeer, you should expect the occasional person to say "mind your own business". *shrugs* I moved my life from the UK back to the US rather than try to change the UK. It wasn't my country to change. And this one ain't Europe's to, either - for all that certain people in gubment would just love to have the same socialist, nannyist state of affairs that drove me from England's fair shores.

Lightwolf
10-07-2008, 03:53 PM
Probably the same number as Europeans who know who the governors of the States are, to be honest.
Hm, how many of those governors have an impact on international relations?

Also, how many US governors would US citizens know? ;)

It wasn't my country to change.
Why not? If you live there you're a part of the community. And the more globalized we get, the larger the community.

And this one ain't Europe's to, either...
I don't think the point is to change it (afaik the current modus operandi for that would be a full scale invasion based on weak reasons followed by a few years of near civil war). ;)
However, US policy does affect us whether we like it or not. If we can't change it (and we can't), we should at least be able to ***** about it - or cheer it ;)

Cheers,
Mike

Iain
10-07-2008, 03:56 PM
Yep. And when you jeer, you should expect the occasional person to say "mind your own business".

US politics is the world's business. The US made it so. You can't nominate yourself as global prefect and then demand privacy and respect.

It's interesting you associate a US State Governor with a European leader. What does the former have to do with international politics or economics?

Apart from Arnold, of course, who will be World President in good time.:hey:

Bog
10-07-2008, 04:04 PM
Perhaps a more pertinant choice of bast... uh, sorry politician would have been the state Senators, as that's more involved with internation relations, law-making and such. And my point still stands... though when World Presnit Schwarzeneggar's in charge, it won't make much difference, will it? ;)

As to why the UK wasn't my country to change? I'm not a citizen there. I have leave to live and work there as I choose, but I'm not a UK national. As someone who respects peoples' right to go to hell in their own chosen way, I don't think it's right to sit there saying "you're doing it wrong, you should do it the way I want!".

I don't want to meddle in other people's affairs - I lack that particular mindset. As far as I'm concerned, everyone can do as they jolly well please as long as it doesn't mess with my own enjoyment of life. Goes for myself, too - I can do as I like, as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else. This would appear to put me in a vanishingly tiny group of people, but there you go.

As to US politics being the world's business.... well, nobody was held at gunpoint and forced to invest in US banks or to buy US currency, I'm pretty sure. OK, the current regime's been a barefaced bunch of words that the forum software would block (I'm pretty sure, not gonna test it), but whilst that's bad news for certain countries in the middle east I'm pretty sure the US hasn't invaded Belgium recently.

shrox
10-07-2008, 04:07 PM
I want to live in an America that goes to the Moon, not an America that goes to war.

Iain
10-07-2008, 04:15 PM
I'm pretty sure the US hasn't invaded Belgium recently.

Good idea. The UK would definitely back that one. Imagine the chocolate and lager bounty.

I think you're just misguided, Bog.
Sedentary laymen are the only people capable of interfering with global politics.

We can change things with our largely unheard but strongly opinionated internet ramblings! Yay for the Browsers!:hey:

Bog
10-07-2008, 05:15 PM
I want to live in an America that goes to the Moon, not an America that goes to war.

I'm sure it'll be that America again in the future. Bloody hope so.

Anyway, I'd rather be misguided and idealistic than any other way. Pessimism makes me want to stay in bed all day and listen to too much Pink Floyd.

Lightwolf
10-07-2008, 05:31 PM
Perhaps a more pertinant choice of bast... uh, sorry politician would have been the state Senators, as that's more involved with internation relations, law-making and such.
Hm, I wouldn't expect anybody to know the names of anybody here in the parliament either...


As to why the UK wasn't my country to change? I'm not a citizen there. I have leave to live and work there as I choose, but I'm not a UK national. As someone who respects peoples' right to go to hell in their own chosen way, I don't think it's right to sit there saying "you're doing it wrong, you should do it the way I want!".
I think if you pay taxes (heck, even if you don't) and you're a part of a community (and that you were) you surely have a right to meddle.
Heck, even if you don't. As someone once said: "It is my right to demand that other people live as well as I do". Obviously there are limits, but I don't think a discussion comes close to hitting them.

I don't want to meddle in other people's affairs - I lack that particular mindset. As far as I'm concerned, everyone can do as they jolly well please as long as it doesn't mess with my own enjoyment of life.
But if they do? Do you pull out or will you try to change it? (Yes, I know the situation, no offense meant).

As to US politics being the world's business.... well, nobody was held at gunpoint and forced to invest in US banks or to buy US currency...
"With us or against us" is close to gunpoint ;) I don't think the financial crisis has a lot do with it, there are plenty of other reasons for resentment.

All countries more or less meddle in others affairs, the US is just the most prominent and best exposed example - and due to it's position tends to meddle a lot more it seems.

Cheers,
Mike

Stunt Pixels
10-07-2008, 06:06 PM
When did Europeans get a right to vote in the US election? Because if they don't have such a right why would anyone get upset now? People have been commenting on foreign elections forever. Yes, including US residents and presidents...

shrox
10-07-2008, 06:23 PM
When did Europeans get a right to vote in the US election? Because if they don't have such a right why would anyone get upset now? People have been commenting on foreign elections forever. Yes, including US residents and presidents...

Illegal immigrants from Mexico vote in the US, I am not sure how, but the campaigns even address them. I guess it is the fault of the registars.

mattclary
10-08-2008, 06:46 AM
The rest of the world would like us to have a weak and ineffectual leader, so what's the surprise? I guess we WOULD be more like them then...

starbase1
10-08-2008, 07:28 AM
Quite. How many average Americans even know the names of our Prime Ministers and Chancellors?
Some interest in foreign affairs other than 'who to take on next' would be very refreshing.


Cue standard presidential approach of speaking to the nation, clutching a globe to point out exactly which country is next in line to be bombed into democracy...

Sorry to any US supporters, but I'm not alone on this side of the pond in thinking that Bush has done more damage to his country, its reputation, world finance, and the reputation of his supposed religion than bin Laden ever dreamed of. There is no clearer demionstration that the USA does not value intelligence than its election of the current president, who could not locate his own ar$e using both hands.

starbase1
10-08-2008, 07:40 AM
I'm probably over-reacting, but I do get a strong urge to shout at people sometimes. I kept admirably calm for decades of English people babbling on about what America should do, and how Americans should be different and more like Brits.

But really, it does rankle that so much of the world likes expressing it's opinion of what America should be, and should do. </curmudgeon>

Well, I can see several good reasons. The current president has neven missed an opportunity to tell the rest of the world that they should do exactly as he says or they are no better than terrorists themselves.

Or the way the US is grabbing tons of data on Euopean citizens, to decide which may be invited to Guantanemo bay. Or just extraditing them from the UK, with no possibility of appeal, (See Garry McKinnon, UFO nut reclassified as master terrorist hacker).

Or Bush's men being sent out to 'wreck the UN' (in their own words), or block climate treaty agreements, or block things like anti land mine treaties.

I think I can honestly say I've never met anyone from the US I didn't like. Those people deserve a better government.

starbase1
10-08-2008, 07:45 AM
If England had fought a bit harder over it a few hundred years ago, then the opinion would be valid. </curmudgeon>

Ah yes, the American war of independence. Things were so very different in those days.

For example, back then America was being governed by a congenital idiot called George, who only got the job because his father had it.

Errr...

mattclary
10-08-2008, 07:47 AM
I'll tell you a big part of our problem, our government seems to have completely abandoned the concept of checks and balances. Congress allows the presidency too much to leeway. I think it probably started with Vietnam or Korea by allowing the president to send us to war when he doesn't actually have that authority. It just gets more and more out of hand with every administration.

I also think a line-item veto was a good idea. Most states allow their governors this ability, yet the federal version was overthrown because it gave the pres "too much power". Congress and the president should be able to put each other in check, that is the way it is designed.

mattclary
10-08-2008, 07:50 AM
For example, back then America was being governed by a congenital idiot called George, who only got the job because his father had it.

Errr...

Not sure which George you are mocking here... King George, I assume?

mattclary
10-08-2008, 08:08 AM
King George, as opposed to George Washington, I mean. Obviously we know who the current congenital-idiot-George-in-chief is.

*Pete*
10-08-2008, 08:08 AM
The rest of the world would like us to have a weak and ineffectual leader, so what's the surprise? I guess we WOULD be more like them then...

do you mean weak and ineffectual as Bush has been?

speaking for myself...i hope for a strong leader for the US, someone with visions and ability to put USA back into the position it once had..as the leader of the world, not the bully of the world.

I want the USA i had when i was a kid, or even at the Clinton era..i want the USA that stood for everything that was cool and worth living for...
i would be saddened to see a USA with a weak leader, an uninspiring leader who cant drag the world with him to realise visions of a better future...basically, i want a powerfull but good USA, not a sad, deppressive shadow of its former self ruled by a idiot who cant speak correctly even in the only language he knows....

im not an america hater..but im a potential america lover, all you need to do..is to give me a reason.

*Pete*
10-08-2008, 08:17 AM
regarding knowledge of eachothers politicians, presidents, ministers, governors and so on...i think both the Europeans and Americans are equally bad at it.

the same with geography..sure, perhaps the average american cant spot Germany or France on an unlabelled map..but how many Europeans would find an american state on a map?
how many could point out venezuela on the map?...or to go at something that is equal for both Americans and Europeans...where is Gambia?..would you find Singapore on the map?
where is Kirgistan?

i think the names of politicians or nations arent important enough to memorise unless you have special reasons for it...i know more about Obama and McCain and what their plans are than i know of the Norwegians party leaders or their plans...

mattclary
10-08-2008, 08:17 AM
do you mean weak and ineffectual as Bush has been?



Bush has accomplished too much, that is his problem.

mattclary
10-08-2008, 08:18 AM
speaking for myself...i hope for a strong leader for the US, someone with visions and ability to put USA back into the position it once had..as the leader of the world, not the bully of the world.

Palin in 2012. When you were a kid, we had Reagan. She is the closest thing we have seen to Reagan in a long time. I think she has a good heart, is an actual LEADER, and would legitimately have the best interest of the country at heart. Can't say all of the above for McCain or Obama.

*Pete*
10-08-2008, 08:22 AM
Bush has accomplished too much, that is his problem.

heh..yeah, true..not much positive though.
intresting how it is possible for one man to ruin so much..he had the experience, he even had a dad who was a president, his brother a governor and he himself lived a lifetime in politics....no matter which one you pick as president, he will be better than Bush...but thats not much to brag about.

mattclary
10-08-2008, 08:24 AM
intresting how it is possible for one man to ruin so much..

The question is, why did Congress ALLOW it. Checks and balances, checks and balances...

*Pete*
10-08-2008, 08:26 AM
Palin in 2012. When you were a kid, we had Reagan. She is the closest thing we have seen to Reagan in a long time. I think she has a good heart, is an actual LEADER, and would legitimately have the best interest of the country at heart. Can't say all of the above for McCain or Obama.

actually...i do agree that she has a good heart, perhaps she is a good leader, but she is not a good politician...she cant handle the press without getting shy or stumble with words.

personally i do not think she is as agressive as is visible in her speeches, its her role...i see her as a good hearted woman, but thats it, as a female presidentual canditate Hillary would beat her every day.

mattclary
10-08-2008, 08:28 AM
actually...i do agree that she has a good heart, perhaps she is a good leader, but she is not a good politician...she cant handle the press without getting shy or stumble with words.

personally i do not think she is as agressive as is visible in her speeches, its her role...i see her as a good hearted woman, but thats it, as a female presidentual canditate Hillary would beat her every day.

So, you actually value someone being a professional politician?

*Pete*
10-08-2008, 08:34 AM
The question is, why did Congress ALLOW it. Checks and balances, checks and balances...

i agree...too much power.

why the congress did allow it all, was perhaps becouse 9/11 and the need to be patriotic and follow the father of the nation in times of crisis.
you have had 9/11 as a crisis for years now...i think that without 9/11 he would never had the chance to get the nation into those mistakes.
checks and balances as you say...but its tough to stop the president when is at the height of his power and popularity, after a terrorist attack and after what seems as evidence of Iraqi wmd's and an imminent threat...

the press and media having banners with the words "america at war" and critics are silenced as unpatriotic traitors...

no, it could not have been easy...but the blame belongs to the leaders, the pres and the congress...they need to keep their heads cool and unaffected to make the right choices...they didnt, and all this happened.

mattclary
10-08-2008, 08:37 AM
i agree...too much power.

why the congress did allow it all, was perhaps becouse 9/11 and the need to be patriotic and follow the father of the nation in times of crisis.
you have had 9/11 as a crisis for years now...i think that without 9/11 he would never had the chance to get the nation into those mistakes.
checks and balances as you say...but its tough to stop the president when is at the height of his power and popularity, after a terrorist attack and after what seems as evidence of Iraqi wmd's and an imminent threat...

the press and media having banners with the words "america at war" and critics are silenced as unpatriotic traitors...

no, it could not have been easy...but the blame belongs to the leaders, the pres and the congress...they need to keep their heads cool and unaffected to make the right choices...they didnt, and all this happened.

The problem isn't limited to the war in Iraq, the whole system seems to bend with the presidency. I think it boils down to corruption. 99% of POLITICIANS are corrupt.

Note my emphasis, and see my post above...

Personally, I think we would be just as well off if members of the house and senate were drafted for office for one term each. Think of it like jury selection, citizens would become senators or congressmen. I don't think we would be any worse off.

manholoz
10-08-2008, 08:41 AM
but how many Europeans would find an american state on a map?


Not quite fair. The US of A is a single country. So it would be just picking out the whole country. The counterpoint would be for a US of A citizen to pick Lombardy or Sicily on a map.

As to broadcasting the US of A presidential debate, do we have a choice? I'm sure it's bundled with Baywatch, American Rugby (hehehe:devil: ok ok, football in my northern neighbour friends speech :D ).
But then, we´re supposed to know what AZ, KY, etc mean. Aztec? Azerbaijan? Kenya? Kayak?

I oppose Mexicans voting in the presidential elections of ANY country that is not their own. That is not our business. We might have had to cede more than half our territory at gunpoint, but it is STILL not our business.

My experience is that people up north are kind and sweet. Sure I've met some loudmouths and all, but I wouldn't generalize a whole country by a few individuals. So I do believe they as a people are quite friendly and all. Just as the Chinese. And probably Iranians and North Koreans. But you wouldn't know that judging from their governments. From pretty much ANY government. Which is a pity. I'm sure we all are missing lots of things that happen when people share healthy and respectful relationships. Foreign relations seem at times worse than a soap opera.

Food for thought. I'ld say there should be an obligatory i.q. and psychological test, sort of an "anti doping" test of sorts for politicians, but then politicians are such nitwits here, we'ld have a power vacuum so big a black hole could be spontaneously created.

*Pete*
10-08-2008, 08:42 AM
So, you actually value someone being a professional politician?

yes.

but when a politician is a bad word as a "liberal" has become, it might sound stupid.

but yes, i do value a politician if he/she is of the right kind.. pandering, lying, mudthrowing and all that is not what it is supposed to be.

a politician is supposed to be someone who has knowledge of the issues that are important for the nation, a person who unites with other politicians to get his ideas heard...for me, an ideal politician is inteligent, calculating and stable person...always strong and able to go against the public wish when needed but also able to hear the worries of the people and to make life easier..

a politician should be fair and fight for the people...not for coorporations, but not against them either, give and take but with a fair hand.

but honestly, theres very few of them....

mattclary
10-08-2008, 08:51 AM
yes.

but when a politician is a bad word as a "liberal" has become, it might sound stupid.

but yes, i do value a politician if he/she is of the right kind.. pandering, lying, mudthrowing and all that is not what it is supposed to be.

a politician is supposed to be someone who has knowledge of the issues that are important for the nation, a person who unites with other politicians to get his ideas heard...for me, an ideal politician is inteligent, calculating and stable person...always strong and able to go against the public wish when needed but also able to hear the worries of the people and to make life easier..

a politician should be fair and fight for the people...not for coorporations, but not against them either, give and take but with a fair hand.

but honestly, theres very few of them....

Well, let's hope Palin studies between now and 2012. Personally, I think she would do fine, but will grant she is not as smooth a talker as the rest of the lot. I would prefer someone who has integrity, strength, and a good heart. Palin is the only one I see of the 4 who has all of those.

*Pete*
10-08-2008, 08:52 AM
99% of POLITICIANS are corrupt.


well...find the one who is not and elect him ;)

no, seriously..a zero tolerance policy against corruption works well.

In sweden, a female politician who had a chance of becoming a prime minister nearly lost her job becouse she bough a bar of chocolade with the goverment credit card (tax payer money).

the ex prime minister of Norway has recently investigated if he did or did not get too much in retirement money or not (not much money), another politician here lost her head as the party leader becose she build a 2 metre bridge for her boat next to her house without applying for permission in advance...

silly, yes..but zero tolerance works, our politicians are boring, but i trust them of not being corrupt.

how to get zero tolerance?..heh, well...the pres and the congress decides i quess ;)

hrgiger
10-08-2008, 09:00 AM
The question is, why did Congress ALLOW it. Checks and balances, checks and balances...

Bush has entirely stepped out of the realm of checks and balances and Cheney has been there every step of the way. Who overstepped their bounds when it came to illegal wiretapping? And torture? Who got a free 24 hour pass from the police (plenty of time to sober up) when he shot someone in the face during a hunting trip? According to this article, Bush has disobeyed more then 750 laws by congress if it 'conflicts' with his own interpretation of the constitution. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/
I wouldn't count on Palin being much in 2012.

*Pete*
10-08-2008, 09:06 AM
So I do believe they as a people are quite friendly and all. Just as the Chinese. And probably Iranians and North Koreans. But you wouldn't know that judging from their governments. From pretty much ANY government.

I agree...most people, no matter the position they have in life are good.
dont let some rotten apples ruin your opinion about apples in general..

prometheus
10-08-2008, 09:06 AM
:)..:)
These threads are fun to watch..Im gonna check all the american votes for the next swedish election 2010, thats gonna be between Fredrik Reinfeldt and Mona sahlin, not so much personal focus as the focus is mostly inbetween the parties.

But..Nahh..who in America would bother? it would probably impact your country or the rest of the world as much as a fish fart in the atlantic ocean.

well the bad economy all around the world is showing up here to..this morning
3000 of the people at volvo was notified about loosing their jobs.

Michael

starbase1
10-08-2008, 09:06 AM
Palin in 2012. When you were a kid, we had Reagan. She is the closest thing we have seen to Reagan in a long time. I think she has a good heart, is an actual LEADER, and would legitimately have the best interest of the country at heart. Can't say all of the above for McCain or Obama.

Well, she's certainly the ideal person to continue the war on science...

*Pete*
10-08-2008, 09:16 AM
I would prefer someone who has integrity, strength, and a good heart. Palin is the only one I see of the 4 who has all of those.

we all see and judge people differently..i see all those 4 values in Obama.

Smooth talker: oh yeah.

integrity = he has a cool temper and is reluctant (less than the others) to resort to negative campaining.

strenght: he has confidence and he is inteligent...much of the same can be said of the others too.

good heart: there is a woman here in Norway, she met a Norwegian man 15+ years ago and was about to take a flight from USA to Norway..but at check in her baggage was too heavy and she didnt have the money to pay for the extra weight (100 dollar)...after she started to cry, a man behind her said "ill pay for her"
it was Obama...she still has the paper where Obama wrote his name 15 years ago and she has donated the maximum allowed for his campaign (she is american).

there may be other, domestic stories about how good Obama might be, but this story is to my knowledge only in norwegian news and doesnt have any politicial advantage for Obama, so i believe its the unfiltered truth.

Larry_g1s
10-08-2008, 09:16 AM
This all the more shows why someone like Obama should NOT be the next president of the US. This is not a knock on Europe, just that he has more values that fall in line else where then in the US at what made our country great. This has been nothing more then a popularity contest. The media/hollywood/etc. has made this guy a celebrity. Whether you like McCain/Palin or not, it is absolutely beyond me that someone like Obama, who has NO experience, with the values he has, can honestly be considered to lead such a great nation. You take away what the media has made him in to, and you look at the qualifications of the candidates just on paper, and it's not even a contest.


Well, let's hope Palin studies between now and 2012. Personally, I think she would do fine, but will grant she is not as smooth a talker as the rest of the lot. I would prefer someone who has integrity, strength, and a good heart. Palin is the only one I see of the 4 who has all of those.Agree. What cracks me up, is that Palin has more experience in leading then Obama and she's the running mate of the other party. Just look at the things Obama supports (see attached)

mattclary
10-08-2008, 09:22 AM
Bush has entirely stepped out of the realm of checks and balances and Cheney has been there every step of the way. Who overstepped their bounds when it came to illegal wiretapping? And torture? Who got a free 24 hour pass from the police (plenty of time to sober up) when he shot someone in the face during a hunting trip? According to this article, Bush has disobeyed more then 750 laws by congress if it 'conflicts' with his own interpretation of the constitution. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/


I don't disagree with you at all. It is congress' responsibility to stop that sh1t. That's their job.

mattclary
10-08-2008, 09:26 AM
integrity = is reluctant (less than the others) to resort to negative campaining.


He doesn't need to, the media take care of that for him. Palin has been eviscerated since day one. Seriously, spreading rumors that her youngest child belongs to her daughter...

mattclary
10-08-2008, 09:28 AM
Just look at the things Obama supports (see attached)

LOL. You won't sway many here with that list, those are the reasons they support Obama.

Larry_g1s
10-08-2008, 09:30 AM
LOL. You won't sway many here with that list, those are the reasons they support Obama.Sadly your right. Partial birth abortion..I mean come on...that's just sick!

Stooch
10-08-2008, 09:55 AM
Sadly your right. Partial birth abortion..I mean come on...that's just sick!

circumcision. molesting altar boys. Having kids to get more welfare. Not being able to abort after a rape. Having some religious dumbass try to use his loony nutjob reasons to deny stem cell research. Uneducated hicks voting for a dumbass solely based on religious convictions. People confusing the state of georgia with the country (podunk residents of east hicksville).

all sick.

i guess it all depends on where you sit.

ill trade, if people stop believing in ******** fairy tales and educate themselves properly, ill support the anti woman legislation. Hopefully there will be less idiots walking around in tinfoil hats who should have been aborted in the first place.

"But that cluster of cells has a soul!" - so does my *** hair.

*Pete*
10-08-2008, 10:00 AM
He doesn't need to, the media take care of that for him. Palin has been eviscerated since day one. Seriously, spreading rumors that her youngest child belongs to her daughter...

....and Obama clearly said that Palins children are not any kind of business of the media or anyone else and he would fire anyone in his campaign who used palins children against her.

integrity...now, what the media does, and even if they do it "for" him, it doesnt mean that he either approves it or can controll it.
dont forget the month long media spotlight on Obama and his pastor, Wright....if anything, Hillary and McCain fueled the fire all they could.

likewise, Palin is picking up Wright, Ayres, Retzko in an attempt to attack Obama on character, instead of policy....on top of the distortions and lies about his policies...you will find a huge list of lies by McCain at factcheck.org ..some of Obama too, but not anywhere close to what the republican camp is spewing out...how is that for integrity, Palin is not innocent either...but as i said, i believe her speeches are written by others and that i do no believe she would be like that in person, she "seems" to have a good heart.

Stooch
10-08-2008, 10:03 AM
so i was trimming my ball hair the other day, i wonder how many souls i prematurely sent to heaven/hell. all those living cells being brutally cut with a mechanized knife. im such an evil person. i love it.

JohnMarchant
10-08-2008, 10:04 AM
Well i would love to be around in say 20-30 years time when america is not top dog and china is. See how much spouting off they do then. They will close in on themselves and revert to type. If its not in america we dont know or care.

Every dog has its day, Greek, Roman, Spain UK now Americas turn wonder what their legacy will be to the world as number one, probably not very much

mattclary
10-08-2008, 10:05 AM
likewise, Palin is picking up Wright, Ayres, Retzko in an attempt to attack Obama on character, instead of policy....

Actually, his dealings with those folks are very much applicable to what you can expect of his policies.

Stooch
10-08-2008, 10:07 AM
"ooh oooh aaaah thats it. lets make a good baby this time."

-palin

*Pete*
10-08-2008, 10:08 AM
Sadly your right. Partial birth abortion..I mean come on...that's just sick!

you are right...but only US and Canada has such a system, we europeans do not.

In Norway you have only 12 week time when you can abort, after that you will become a mother unless strong medical reasons say differently.

No abortion is wrong, abortion to the moment of birth is also wrong...find a middle way and stick to it, give choice but dont let it to be too barbaric.

that said, i agree with Stooch...

*Pete*
10-08-2008, 10:10 AM
so i was trimming my ball hair the other day, i wonder how many souls i prematurely sent to heaven/hell. all those living cells being brutally cut with a mechanized knife. im such an evil person. i love it.

i had my cats castrated...im more evil than you, thats countless amounts of possible kittens gone in the trashcan at the veterinarys office.

Stooch
10-08-2008, 10:11 AM
In Norway you have only 12 week time when you can abort, after that you will become a mother unless strong medical reasons say differently.

No abortion is wrong, abortion to the moment of birth is also wrong...find a middle way and stick to it, give choice but dont let it to be too barbaric....

that to me seems totally reasonable. i would totally back this.

Flat out banning abortion is an extremist view.

mattclary
10-08-2008, 10:11 AM
No, the notion of God is sick. It's a mental sickness passed on from mentally incapacitated parents to innocent children.

Religion serves some purposes:

1. The ultimate panopticon. Sort of like all the surveillance cameras in London, but you can't hide. Ever.

2. It's tough to face the fact that you will cease to exist when you die. I think it gets harder after you have kids. To be honest, I envy anyone who truly has faith that there is a God, but faith isn't something you can "decide" to have. Man is the only animal who is fully aware that he will cease to exist. Is it any wonder we are nearly insane as a species?

Larry_g1s
10-08-2008, 10:12 AM
Wow...really Stooch & neverko, you're really going to equate sticking a needle like instrument in to the head of a full term baby's head, that's half way sticking out of the women, to kill it by sucks its brains out as the same as believing in the creator? Really? Wow! It never ceases to amaze me how people can have such hatred over a God they claim "doesn't exist". Mind boggling.

Stooch
10-08-2008, 10:15 AM
faith is fine when kept to yourself. unfortunatelly here in the USA faith is ingrained at the very top. so its no longer just a way to cope with death or teach morality. its impeding my constitutional right to have a "freedom of religion".

all lawas that use religious reasoning as a basis for argument, impede someones constitutional rights in this country.

also i argue that you can prepare yourself for death and live a balanced life through science and logic. it just takes more effort to educate yourself so its not as popular.

Stooch
10-08-2008, 10:16 AM
Wow...really Stooch & neverko, you're really going to equate sticking a needle like instrument in to the head of a full term baby's head, that's half way sticking out of the women, to kill it by sucks its brains out as the same as believing in the creator? Really? Wow! It never ceases to amaze me how people can have such hatred over a God they claim "doesn't exist". Mind boggling.


read post 63.

I dont hate religion. I hate weak minded people who need a mental crutch to live their life, because they are too lazy to walk. I hate it even more when these people try to use the concept of "evidence" to argue that there is a god. and ignorantly equating science with religious conviction. when all they have to do is sit down and read the definition of the scientific method.

I cant hate god because i have no evidence of his existence. All i have is evidence of stupidity that spans millenia using this unproven hypothesis as a basis.

Larry_g1s
10-08-2008, 10:20 AM
read post 63.

I dont hate religion. I hate weak minded people who need a mental crutch to live their life, because they are too lazy to walk. I hate it even more when these people try to use the concept of "evidence" to argue that there is a god. and ignorantly equating science with religious conviction. when all they have to do is sit down and read the definition of the scientific method.Post #63 came after your comment, my point still stands.

Evolution is NOT scientific. 2nd law of thermal dynamics blows it out of the water. DNA blows it out of the water.

The whole theory of evolution was set up or popularize, not on scientific reason, but on the fact that the main proponent did want to have anything to do with God. So the idea that it's unbiased and logical is ridiculous.

Iain
10-08-2008, 10:21 AM
Wow... you're really going to equate

What about equating someone supporting a non-discrimination bill with someone who supports favouring homosexuals in business?

Seriously Larry, that pdf is a joke.

What's wrong with not denouncing Gay Pride? Why should we pretend to our children that gay people don't exist? Why oppose stem cell research?

Oh-is it something to do with the bible, perhaps? Good grounds for political siding.

Stooch
10-08-2008, 10:23 AM
Evolution is NOT scientific. 2nd law of thermal dynamics blows it out of the water. DNA blows it out of the water.

The whole theory of evolution was set up or popularize, not on scientific reason, but on the fact that the main proponent did want to have anything to do with God. So the idea that it's unbiased and logical is ridiculous.

umm. DNA is proof of evolution. lol hahahahahahah

so are fossils. the hypothesis of evolution has been used for centuries to breed better livestock and develop crops. all are based on evolution and are making measureable improvents in our society. Your statements are so laughable because all you have to do is read a book and use your mind a little and you wouldnt sound so vacuous.

in your case i whole heartedly support abortion.

Larry_g1s
10-08-2008, 10:24 AM
What about equating someone supporting a non-discrimination bill with someone who supports favouring homosexuals in business?

Seriously Larry, that pdf is a joke.

What's wrong with not denouncing Gay Pride? Why should we pretend to our children that gay people don't exist? Why oppose stem cell research?

Oh-is it something to do with the bible, perhaps? Good grounds for political siding.Who said we are pretending they don't exist? The difference isn't endorsing it (hints the name PRIDE). And to question me and the bible as bad political ground is ridiculous. The foundation of our country is found on it. But I don't suppose you would know anything about that.

*Pete*
10-08-2008, 10:25 AM
Actually, his dealings with those folks are very much applicable to what you can expect of his policies.

it goes both ways..

all of them have weird religious figures behind them, McCains priest said that Katrina was gods punishment on US for allowing Israeli govt to remove some settlements in Palestine...for example.

McCain has also the Keating scandal, in which he was not just someone who knew the bad guys (Retzko, ayers) but he was actually one of them.

Palin and her husbands membership with the alaskan indepedence party, their unwillingnes to co operate with the troopergate investigation....

all those are for me atleast equally, if not more, related to the way they might govern the nation, than Obamas connections to his 3 bad people...

Larry_g1s
10-08-2008, 10:34 AM
umm. DNA is proof of evolution. lol hahahahahahah

so are fossils. the hypothesis of evolution has been used for centuries to breed better stock and develop crops. all are based on the hypothesis and are making measureable improvents in our society.

in your case i whole heartedly support abortion.DNA is a code, a language, it is scientifically IMPOSSIBLE to have a language or code arrive by random chance chemistry because there is not intrinsic value in the arrangement of the language. The DNA code is an error correcting, self reproducing, language. Information science proves that a language never ever arrives by change, but has to be agreed upon by minds. Meaning the arrange of the letters: C-A-T (in the english language) only mean a feline mammal because we with minds placed the value on that arrangement.

When NewTek wants to make advancements in LightWave, they don't start hacking at the keyboard randomly, they uses programmers, who use their minds, to make arrangements of code to produce something. DNA is no different, but in actuality, more advanced.

Your example of evolution with crops is micro evolution, not macro evolution. Micro evolution teaches advancements in the same types/species. Macro, which is taught as how we got hear and as a way to do away with a Creator, is bogus because it says that it's advancements from one type/species to another, which would require additional information in the DNA code. Additional information that it doesn't have.

hrgiger
10-08-2008, 10:37 AM
What I hate is that people who have supposedly seen UFO's are considered kooks in our society but people that believe in a invisible bearded man in the sky are respected. I don't see any difference between the two and actually, I'm more likely to give more credibility to the UFO person because they've actually seen something physical.

*Pete*
10-08-2008, 10:38 AM
Evolution is NOT scientific. 2nd law of thermal dynamics blows it out of the water. DNA blows it out of the water.


can you explain it more detailed to me, for me DNA prooves evolution, not disproves it...

Larry_g1s
10-08-2008, 10:39 AM
Oh noes, the God-tard ideology has invaded the thread.

This thread now more than ever deserves a moderators firm touch. Maybe it needs to be aborted?

I vote for a politically clean environment on these forums... no wait, it's not a democracy anyway.


No, the notion of God is sick. It's a mental sickness passed on from mentally incapacitated parents to innocent children.

Hypocrite.

*Pete*
10-08-2008, 10:41 AM
scientifically IMPOSSIBLE

so is gravity...what else is new?

all it shows, is that if science cant explain something, science is not advanced enough....it doesnt mean that god created it.

and if it does, who created god?, random chance?

Stooch
10-08-2008, 10:43 AM
hahaha. hey man. please for the love of god. educate yourself about evolution. read up on DNA, UNDERSTAND logic and scientific reasoning. really understand what you are talking about before trying to teach.

Logic is not just using words and analogies to sound intelligent. I call that wordplay and it only works on fools. Coincidentally, much of religious drivel and notions are heavily into wordplay and inspirational one liners.

you cannot expect me to rationalize your word salad. The concepts you are using dont work like you think.


DNA is a code, a language, it is scientifically IMPOSSIBLE to have a language or code arrive by random chance chemistry because there is not intrinsic value in the arrangement of the language. The DNA code is an error correcting, self reproducing, language. Information science proves that a language never ever arrives by change, but has to be agreed upon by minds. Meaning the arrange of the letters: C-A-T (in the english language) only mean a feline mammal because we with minds placed the value on that arrangement.

When NewTek wants to make advancements in LightWave, they don't start hacking at the keyboard randomly, they uses programmers, who use their minds, to make arrangements of code to produce something. DNA is no different, but in actuality, more advanced.

Your example of evolution with crops is micro evolution, not macro evolution. Micro evolution teaches advancements in the same types/species. Macro, which is taught as how we got hear and as a way to do away with a Creator, is bogus because it says that it's advancements from one type/species to another, which would require additional information in the DNA code. Additional information that it doesn't have.

*Pete*
10-08-2008, 10:45 AM
regarding dna and god...dna can contain mental or physical illnesses, these can go from parent to child.

if its work of god, why punish a child with a sickness that the parents carried?..evolution is blind, god is not...so why would god allow such an injustice as a sick or handicapped child into a world where he/she has unequal opportunities?

mattclary
10-08-2008, 10:48 AM
also i argue that you can prepare yourself for death and live a balanced life through science and logic. it just takes more effort to educate yourself so its not as popular.

I'm really curious how one "educates" oneself into embracing the fact that they will cease to exist one day. ;)

Larry_g1s
10-08-2008, 10:49 AM
can you explain it more detailed to me, for me DNA prooves evolution, not disproves it...Look what I wrote in #74. I would be more than happy to elaborate if needed.

This idea that science has disprove the existence of God is nothing more then a lie. Science has to be in the realm of what is repeatable, observable, & etc. You can't put God in a test tube, so again the idea that science has proven there is not God is a lie. So it boils down to what is more probable. With the absolute unparalleled order we have on our earth to even sustain life, the fact that DNA is a genetic code/language that CANNOT arrive by chance due to the laws of information science, the fact that things that are created in this world (homes, cars, PC, animation, etc) have all had a designer/programmer/creator....the probablity evidence ways in the favor of God.

The problem isn't a matter of faith or not faith, the matter is that people don't like the results of the evidence. See if there is a Creator, that means He makes the rules, and we are accountable to Him. If there is ape in your ancestry, you make the rules and you answer to yourself. People don't want to be accountable is the real issue. Which brings me to my original point, that evolution as popularized by Darwin, was established on logic and science, it had to do with the death of his daughter and he didn't like the fact of God and accountability. It was an emotional bases.

Iain
10-08-2008, 10:50 AM
Did I mention that this thread is retarded, yet compellingly addictive.


Every time one of these threads come up, I try to stay away but in those long render moments, I just can't resist commenting and that's it. Sucked in!

Stooch
10-08-2008, 10:51 AM
I'm really curious how one "educates" oneself into embracing the fact that they will cease to exist one day. ;)

MY body will be broken down into nutrients that will facilitate the cycle of life. I would be terrified if some apathetic jackass got to arbitrarily decide if i was to suffer or be happy for eternity.

What would your immortal soul do for eternity anyway? How can your concience exist perpetually without suffering from energy dissipation. how does your mind appreciate the afterlife when the DNA decomposes and breaks apart?

Stooch
10-08-2008, 10:54 AM
the fact that DNA is a genetic code/language that CANNOT arrive by chance due to the laws of information science, the fact that things that are created in this world (homes, cars, PC, animation, etc) have all had a designer/programmer/creator....the probablity evidence ways in the favor of God.

so who made god then?

he just kind of materialized in all of his infinite power? surely he would have to be more complicated than all of us put together?

logic. do you speak it?

CMT
10-08-2008, 10:54 AM
Everyone here has been on this forum long enough to know that this thread is just a long winded waste of time.

Neverko, We all know your disgust for religion. Nary a thread goes by where the Almighty is mentioned that you don't reassert that belief with a passion.

What I hate is that we always seem to have these threads pop up and we all seem to go through the same ol routine of thrashing religion and the believers try with all their might to defend their beliefs, only to have evolution, etc... thrown in their face as some sort of proof that God doesn't exist. Yadda yadda yadda.....

Got news for you all. No one can prove it definitively either way, so no one will ever cave on their stance, especially the believers who go on faith as well as evidence. Something we should have learned from the Church thread. Go read through that thread if you want to read a nice heated debate on the topic.

Or get this thread back on topic.....

mattclary
10-08-2008, 10:58 AM
Look what I wrote in #74. I would be more than happy to elaborate if needed.

This idea that science has disprove the existence of God is nothing more then a lie. Science has to be in the realm of what is repeatable, observable, & etc. You can't put God in a test tube, so again the idea that science has proven there is not God is a lie. So it boils down to what is more probable. With the absolute unparalleled order we have on our earth to even sustain life, the fact that DNA is a genetic code/language that CANNOT arrive by chance due to the laws of information science, the fact that things that are created in this world (homes, cars, PC, animation, etc) have all had a designer/programmer/creator....the probablity evidence ways in the favor of God.

The problem isn't a matter of faith or not faith, the matter is that people don't like the results of the evidence. See if there is a Creator, that means He makes the rules, and we are accountable to Him. If there is ape in your ancestry, you make the rules and you answer to yourself. People don't want to be accountable is the real issue. Which brings me to my original point, that evolution as popularized by Darwin, was established on logic and science, it had to do with the death of his daughter and he didn't like the fact of God and accountability. It was an emotional bases.

Larry, science can not prove God does not exist, but neither can it prove he DOES exist.

I am not religious, consider myself more agnostic. I HOPE God exists, but just have no faith that he does.

Now listen VERY carefully here, Larry. Actually take time and read this:
Lets assume God exists. He created the universe. That's a big role, takes lost of power to do that.

Why do you limit what you think God is capable of? God went through a lot of trouble to manufacture this universe and all of it's physical laws, don't you think?

Now, after going through all that work to create said laws, why do you think God is incapable of working INSIDE those laws to produce life? You actually give God less credit than he is due by denying evolution. The fact that man evolved from a lower life form does not make us lesser beings, it makes God's plan all that much more brilliant.

*Pete*
10-08-2008, 10:59 AM
This idea that science has disprove the existence of God is nothing more then a lie.

science cant disprove the possible existence of a softball sized clump of shocolade in the space on the back side of the moon..its impossible, it "could" be there...we simply do not have the technology to find out if it is true or not true.

likewise, science cant disprove god either...and science doesnt try either, its an impossible task, just as with any other claim, just like the chocolade ball....but what science does, is to try out theories...we found out that a potato floats in seawater but sinks in freshwater, we also found out why.

how would we make an experiment to find out if god exists?...another holocaust, but with different religion this time?...would it prove that god doesnt exist?, no it wouldnt..only that if he did exist didnt care.

disproving god is not important..if you are religious, its good for you..and i mean it, but the inability to disprove god doesnt mean that it is evidence of his existence either..

mattclary
10-08-2008, 11:01 AM
MY body will be broken down into nutrients that will facilitate the cycle of life. I would be terrified if some apathetic jackass got to arbitrarily decide if i was to suffer or be happy for eternity.

What would your immortal soul do for eternity anyway? How can your concience exist perpetually without suffering from energy dissipation. how does your mind appreciate the afterlife when the DNA decomposes and breaks apart?

I educated myself on the cycle of life when I was 10. It does not salve my consciousness to know I become fertilizer when I die.

I cope, but it just saddens me to know I'll be separated from my daughter when I die.

Stooch
10-08-2008, 11:01 AM
Got news for you all. No one can prove it definitively either way, so no one will ever cave on their stance, especially the believers who go on faith as well as evidence. Something we should have learned from the Church thread. Go read through that thread if you want to read a nice heated debate on the topic.

Or get this thread back on topic.....

There is enough scientific proof that makes god inconsequential to the universe. everything that was previously attributed to god has been explained with science so there is nothing left for god to be responsible for. Henceforth, trying to apply laws based on inconsequential principles is counter productive to a logical mind.

the creation of the universe is better explained by science than it does by religion based on the evidence at hand.

Stooch
10-08-2008, 11:04 AM
I educated myself on the cycle of life when I was 10. It does not salve my consciousness to know I become fertilizer when I die.

I cope, but it just saddens me to know I'll be separated from my daughter when I die.

we arent talking about your personal ways to cope with your personal demons. we are talking about religion impeding on other peoples freedoms when they dont share the same coping strategy.

*Pete*
10-08-2008, 11:04 AM
Every time one of these threads come up, I try to stay away but in those long render moments, I just can't resist commenting and that's it. Sucked in!


me too..its horrible, an addiction of some kind...im at work now, so its np..paid time and all, but i spend too much of my free time on this as well.

mattclary
10-08-2008, 11:08 AM
we arent talking about your personal ways to cope with your personal demons. we are talking about religion impeding on other peoples freedoms when they dont share the same coping strategy.

No, I was talking about why religion exists, you chose to interject your thoughts.

Killing unborn children is not solely the concerns of the religious, I just happen to think it's a pretty fVcked up thing to do.

But I will grant that it does help natural selection out quite a bit.

Iain
10-08-2008, 11:09 AM
it just saddens me to know I'll be separated from my daughter when I die.

She'll be ok. The grief and sadness will pass and she'll have other people of importance in her life, probably her own children.

You will hopefully have enjoyed your life to the full and have no regrets. If you reach old age, (and again, hopefully you will) you will most likely feel that you've been here and done it.

That's my philosophy. Enjoy the time and relationships you have.

*Pete*
10-08-2008, 11:09 AM
Now, after going through all that work to create said laws, why do you think God is incapable of working INSIDE those laws to produce life? You actually give God less credit than he is due by denying evolution. The fact that man evolved from a lower life form does not make us lesser beings, it makes God's plan all that much more brilliant.

well said Matt.

now, back on topic or let the thread die?...religion is a difficult subject.

CMT
10-08-2008, 11:12 AM
There is enough scientific proof that makes god inconsequential to the universe.

Again, I'm not about to be dragged into this discussion again. But all this scientific proof is all just laws and formulas to explain what we can observe. Now there's all kinds of speculation in the scientific community regarding how many actual dimensions there may be and how, if at all, we interact with them and what purpose they might serve.

Now, considering how little we actually know about the universe, and humanity's record of being wrong so often with regards to it's nature, even though we have adamantly believed we have it right... right up until it's proven wrong, how can you make that statement?

*Pete*
10-08-2008, 11:13 AM
Killing unborn children is not solely the concerns of the religious, I just happen to think it's a pretty fVcked up thing to do.


agreed....the best solution is to go european on this...12 weeks limit on abortion rights, after that you give birth unless medical reasons say otherwise.

that would put an end on the abortion issue and lessen the amount of pro-life people as many would accept an compromise...but the fewest of politicians (negatively used word in this case) are brave enough to suggest any middle ground on anything in fear of loosing voters...

Larry_g1s
10-08-2008, 11:17 AM
I would be terrified if some jackass with an attitude got to arbitrarily decide if i was to suffer or be happy for eternity.If we're going to have an adult discussion, do you think you can try not to purposefully be so derogatory?


you claim that we are so complex that only god could have made us. so who made god then?I'm saying complexity and things with purpose weight much more heavily in the probability of God then not. Let me give you an example. If there was a major wind storm one night, it wouldn't surprise you that leaves were blown all over your yard. The disorder would not make you assume that someone did it. But if you woke up the next morning and the leaves were arranged in such a manner that it looked like the letter "H" and "I", you would be a complete idiot to assume that happened by chance and not the intellect of a person. But yet people who believe in evolution are willing to do it everyday. Complexity and purpose, prove a designer. Particularly when it comes to DNA, which is no different (except much more complex) then my "HI" arrangement of leaves example. Both are a language, a language or code cannot arrive by chance, it's impossible, because it takes a mind(s) to apply meaning to the arrangement.

What I've explained applies to everything in the universe, due to it's material/physical nature. Meaning if it is physical, it applies. Which is why I brought up what Einstein proved about everything physical had to have a beginning. The question of who made God assumes He had a beginning. God is not physical, but a spiritual (much like the real you, your body is only a casing for it - the hardware). God not being physical, is not bound by the laws of the universe He created. He is out side of it. I guess in some ways the same way we work when we're in LW. It is a virtual world, is it not? We do thing in that world, with laws/restrictions/etc. that don't apply to us because we are outside of that "world". Much in the same way God is not bound by the laws of the world he has created, because He's out side it. The laws and rules don't apply.

Stooch
10-08-2008, 11:18 AM
No, I was talking about why religion exists, you chose to interject your thoughts.
Killing unborn children is not solely the concerns of the religious, I just happen to think it's a pretty fVcked up thing to do.


Killing born children is even worse. Or delivering an unwanted child. Or a child with severe birth defects. Or watching the child grow into a sociopath and take out innocent people with his exit off the mortal coil. Yes natural selection would greatly benefit from abortion. Its not about being cruel or cold hearted, its ensuring that the child gets all the advantages possible. to be born at the right time (financial stability), to be born healthy, and most importantly to be born into a nurturing and loving environment. To be educated properly by a system that is not overflowing with rejects.

So yes, my thoughts on abortion are for the rights of the child, the mother and the father. The are NOT to appease some arbitrary entity who doesnt give a **** about me or my child.

Larry_g1s
10-08-2008, 11:19 AM
Religion very much represents a political venue to me and that is one of the reasons I despise it's use here when it pops up.You brought it up. That's why I said hypocrite.

Stooch
10-08-2008, 11:22 AM
If we're going to have an adult discussion, do you think you can try not to purposefully be so derogatory?

I'm saying complexity and things with purpose weight much more heavily in the probability of God then not.

***here are some pointless examples that attempt to use logic but fall flat on their face and bury any sensibility in a torrent of drivel***

So are you going to explain to me who made god or are you going to focus on assaulting me with more word salad ?

I will become very appreciative and supportive instead of derogatory the moment you apply logic to your posts.

Larry_g1s
10-08-2008, 11:25 AM
So are you going to explain to me who made god or are you going to focus on assaulting me with more word salad ?

I will become very appreciative and supportive instead of derogatory the moment you apply logic to your posts.I did in #104. I wasn't assaulting anyone by asking to keep things civilized. And that last sentence isn't my quote. I don't know if that was an accident or you're trying to malign what I said. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

CMT
10-08-2008, 11:26 AM
:neener:

By using my own words, you're admitting that the logic of my argument has merit.

But.... we can't and haven't disproved Him so the logic of using my own argument isn't there for you to take advantage of. :neener:

hrgiger
10-08-2008, 11:27 AM
If God exists, may he strike me down before I make post #7779.

hrgiger
10-08-2008, 11:27 AM
I guess not.

Stooch
10-08-2008, 11:28 AM
I did in #104. I wasn't assaulting anyone by asking to keep things civilized. And that last sentence isn't my quote. I don't know if that was an accident or you're trying to malign what I said. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

no you didnt. you expect me to believe things that have no proof. you are expecting faith from me when scientific method is opposite of that. You tossed more word salad at me and then claimed it as proof. There are no spiritual beings. you have no soul. your mind shuts down when you die.

prove me wrong. with evidence. not with tossing word salad.

using LW has nothing to do with the real world. it would take a very very special person to believe that. and the more you talk the more special you seem to me. I guess you are just a badly solving particle system.

mattclary
10-08-2008, 11:33 AM
Religion very much represents a political venue to me and that is one of the reasons I despise it's use here when it pops up. It is always under a political veil.

I have already stated a few times that I am fully capable of accepting people having belief, I just don't tolerate religion used as a political means and having it thrust in my face. I don't start anti-religious threads or even pursue them or otherwise practice any anti-religious doings. I simply jump on it when it pops up here where it doesn't belong.

If some people who have problems facing the world as it is feel safer and more existentially anchored by clinging to some old texts, fine by me. But make politics of it and I will ridicule the insanity.

The funny thing is I think you equate religion with conservatism, and your real problem is with conservatism.

Barack Obama has attended church regularly for years and is the epitome of liberalism, I on the other hand don't go to church.

The abortion issue, IMO, is used to obscure the real issues by the media. It's used as a lightning rod to focus FUD on religious politicians. It's been made into this huge issue with Palin, but I feel pretty sure, left to her own devices, she probably wouldn't touch the issue.

You all do realize how little power the president has to affect abortion law, right? The most influence the president has to affect this is to appoint a new chief justice if one should kick the bucket or retire, then the issue would have to make it's way through the court system AGAIN, and be brought back before the supreme court.

You guys should relax, you will have the uninfringed right to get of your illegitimate children.

Larry_g1s
10-08-2008, 11:36 AM
no you didnt. you expect me to believe things that have no proof. you are expecting faith from me when scientific method is opposite of that. You tossed more word salad at me and then claimed it as proof. There are no spiritual beings. you have no soul. your mind shuts down when you die.

prove me wrong. with evidence. not with tossing word salad.So you're going to tell me you don't have faith? As I said before Science is the study of things testable/repeatable/observable. You cannot say science has proven we are here as the result of millions of years of random chance chemistry, because NO ONE WAS THERE. It is by definition put out of the realm of true science. So you have to by faith believe that. Which is why I go back to DNA, proving it is more probably that there is a creator.

People are unwilling to expect that, not on scientific grounds, but emotional grounds. As stated before, if there is a Creator, He makes the rules and we are accountable to Him. If ape is in your ancestry, you get to make the rules and you answer to yourself. People don't want to believe where the evidence points because people don't want to be accountable. The whole of evolution goes against the laws of physics, information science, etc. The only department that it fits in is the biology dept. But not on a scientific bases. Again, Darwin popularized the theory based upon the death of his daughter and his apathy of accountability to a Creator, not on scientific grounds.

Larry_g1s
10-08-2008, 11:38 AM
No actually you brought it up with your ravings. Go back and re-read. Politics clearly laced with religion.If you're going to make an accusation at least be man/women enough to provide the evidence. Which number is it?

Stooch
10-08-2008, 11:39 AM
I just like to argue with religious people because I feel that there is such a thing as mental evolution and I am an instrument of it. Sooner or later, as more people get better education, religion will be relegated to fairy tales where it belongs and will no longer influence politics.

Stooch
10-08-2008, 11:41 AM
So you're going to tell me you don't have faith? As I said before Science is the study of things testable/repeatable/observable. You cannot say science has proven we are here as the result of millions of years of random chance chemistry, because NO ONE WAS THERE.

holy ****. Are you serious? how many ways do i have to tell you that SCIENCE IS OPPOSITE OF FAITH.

No one was there when your supposed god, supposedly made the universe. Please for the love of god, apply your own arguments to your self before you hit that post button and you will grace us with much shorter posts.

That will be your first step to embracing logic.

thanks.

p.s. its really annoying to answer to your posts too because half of your arguments defeat themselves in your own post. its ridiculous.

Larry_g1s
10-08-2008, 11:45 AM
I just like to argue with religious people because I feel that there is such a thing as mental evolution and I am an instrument of it. Sooner or later, as more people get better education, religion will be relegated to fairy tales where it belongs and will no longer influence politics.You're hiding behind a cloak of intellect, but you're intellectual dishonest. I have provided you with evidence of the probability of the Creator, you and you have brought nothing. The only fairy tale here is evolution. Macro evolution is impossible do to what I've shown you in DNA. In order to go from one species to another, there has to be additional information added to a species DNA that it doesn't have. I say fairy tale, because the only place mutation actually works is in comic books. Not in real life.

Larry_g1s
10-08-2008, 11:48 AM
Don't tell me you suddenly lost the ability to track your own posts? :)I know what I wrote, I kept it strictly political, and got as far as saying partial birth abortion is sick, before you responded with the "notion of God is sick". You interjected it, and then condemned people for talking about it...which is why I said your a hypocrite.

Stooch
10-08-2008, 11:52 AM
your "proof" of the probability of the creator makes that probability infinitecimal in comparison to the probability of evolution. You also cearly dont read much because you should know that the genome project uncovered an additional level of information that stores millions orders of magnitude more than the simplistic hypothesies we had of the DNA structure prior to the project.

Larry_g1s
10-08-2008, 11:56 AM
holy ****. Are you serious? how many ways do i have to tell you that SCIENCE IS OPPOSITE OF FAITH.

No one was there when your supposed god, supposedly made the universe. Please for the love of god, apply your own arguments to your self before you hit that post button and you will grace us with much shorter posts. You're dishonest. Science is the study of what is observable/repeatable/testable. None of that has been done with evolution. So no matter how much you may want it not to be so, to believe it it's faith. I've time and again, spoke about what is more probable, so I have applied the logic to myself, which is why I've never said I didn't have faith. What I'm saying is for you to act like you don't is dishonest. Science has proven nor dis proven God, and it has not proven something in the past...by definition it CANNOT. You have to believe it by faith. Mine is just more probable, as I've proven.

Larry_g1s
10-08-2008, 11:59 AM
your "proof" of the probability of the creator makes that probability infinitecimal in comparison to the probability of evolution. You also cearly dont read much because you should know that the genome project uncovered an additional level of information that stores millions orders of magnitude more than the simplistic hypothesies we had of the DNA structure prior to the project.Which only proves my point more, because according to information science, a language CANNOT arrive by chance. There is not intrinsic value in the arrangement of letters, it has to be applied by an out side source. What part of this aren't you getting? You don't have to agree with me, but don't say it's on scientific grounds, because it's not. It's dishonest.

Stooch
10-08-2008, 12:02 PM
You're dishonest. Science is the study of what is observable/repeatable/testable. None of that has been done with evolution.

are you reading your own posts?

didnt i just mention the genome project.

yeah. im sorry but i think that you are a perfect candidate for abortion. I think im just going to focus on audience that still has some reserves of logic left lol.

wow the more i listen to larry try to rationalize, the more im convinced that religion is an evil mental cancer. I have heard more sense from PETA.

Larry_g1s
10-08-2008, 12:10 PM
are you reading your own posts?

didnt i just mention the genome project.

yeah. im sorry but i think that you are a perfect candidate for abortion. I think im just going to focus on audience that still has some reserves of logic left lol.

wow the more i listen to larry try to rationalize, the more im convinced that religion is an evil mental cancer.All you've done is fling mud/call names, you've not once brought up any evidence. And you're going to call this logical.

The genome project example proves more of what I'm saying because of it's detail and complexity. It doesn't change the fact that language or code will never arise by chance. It would be like saying that the code LW is made up of could just as easily be derived by randomly hacking at the keyboards given enough time. Not only is that ridiculous, but it still wouldn't account for the fact that someone would have to have used their mind to even come up with the code. What you're suggestion evolution solves is the antithesis of what every programmer tries to avoid.

But I can tell from your comments, you don't want the evidence because of it's implications.

Stooch
10-08-2008, 12:16 PM
Again, I'm not about to be dragged into this discussion again. But all this scientific proof is all just laws and formulas to explain what we can observe. Now there's all kinds of speculation in the scientific community regarding how many actual dimensions there may be and how, if at all, we interact with them and what purpose they might serve.

Now, considering how little we actually know about the universe, and humanity's record of being wrong so often with regards to it's nature, even though we have adamantly believed we have it right... right up until it's proven wrong, how can you make that statement?

The same way someone can make a statement that there is a god. Its the face of the same coin. It never ceases to amaze me how someone arguing about spirituality cannot apply his own arguments to his own words.

My statements are simple, they are not CONVICTIONS they are logical assumptions based on facts on hand. Logically, it makes more sense given my limited information to deny the existance of god. Prove me wrong with a show of evidence and you will instantly find a believer. a lack of evidence is not evidence in itself. You do not have to explain that to someone who is already using logic. But then again, if people were logical they wouldnt BELIEVE, they would KNOW. If someone is making a law, i sure as hell hope he is using his knowledge and not his beliefs.

*Pete*
10-08-2008, 12:20 PM
I have provided you with evidence of the probability of the Creator.

evidence of propability is no proof, its status quo..not disproven, not proven..it might be, might not be.

what you have not done, which is also the very basic on your argument is to provide proof for the impossibility for dna to be created without god...

see...science aside, all the argument is whether or not something is impossible or not while we do not have the knowledge, education or even good enough google links to back us up....
does god exist, can dna exist without god?..answer might be yes on both, no on both or yes on one of them and no on the other...we dont know, so lets stick to "maybe" for both and end the argument.

*Pete*
10-08-2008, 12:22 PM
The genome project example proves more of what I'm saying because of it's detail and complexity. It doesn't change the fact that language or code will never arise by chance.

i could swear that i saw a cloud shaped like a crocodile just the other day..so it was not by chance? was it a sign???

Lightwolf
10-08-2008, 12:23 PM
It doesn't change the fact that language or code will never arise by chance. It would be like saying that the code LW is made up of could just as easily be derived by randomly hacking at the keyboards given enough time.
Erm, no. You're forgetting one thing, and that's natural selection. Early rejection is another term that I'd use for code in that context ;)

As for code... you can apply the same principles to optimize code, there's plenty of working examples and research in that area.

As for proof, at least certain parts of evolution do have scientific proof, unlike religion which has none at all (and, as you stated, can't have it either).

Cheers,
Mike

Stooch
10-08-2008, 12:24 PM
All you've done is fling mud/call names, you've not once brought up any evidence. And you're going to call this logical.

That is according to your BELIEFS. To a logical person who is educated, I have brought up plenty of evidence. You see, you fail to understand what im talking about and fail to see the logic of my words because you are not educated enough to fully understand what it is that you are talking about. You will not see evidence if it hit you in the face because your faith has made you blind or maybe you have faith because you are. I am just kindly letting you know that you are living a delusional lie.



The genome project example proves more of what I'm saying because of it's detail and complexity. It doesn't change the fact that language or code will never arise by chance. It would be like saying that the code LW is made up of could just as easily be derived by randomly hacking at the keyboards given enough time. Not only is that ridiculous, but it still wouldn't account for the fact that someone would have to have used their mind to even come up with the code. What you're suggestion evolution solves is the antithesis of what every programmer tries to avoid.

that is the inherent problem. the genome project is done by logical scientists who are practicing science, who live by observations instead of assumptions. so its all the more ironic when you pervert their work with your twisted perception of the world around you. Again, if god exists then there must be some "code", the very same metaphysical code that you are trying to explain our councience with. Who wrote that code?



But I can tell from your comments, you don't want the evidence because of it's implications.
I can tell from your comments that when using the word "evidence" you have no idea what the word actually means and if you saw said "evidence" you wouldnt even realize it with your holy blinders in the way.

Stooch
10-08-2008, 12:26 PM
Eugenics is the only salvation for our species.

Too much genetic waste in circulation. The gene pool is becoming ever more stagnant and putrid.

Evolution has failed.

thus. the logical conclusion is that we must use abortion in order to purify it.

Larry_g1s
10-08-2008, 12:27 PM
evidence of propability is no proof, its status quo..not disproven, not proven..it might be, might not be.But go back to my leaves example being arranged in the form of the two letters "HI". The probability is so stacked in favor that it took intellect to arrange the leaves in such a manner that to believe anything else becomes ridiculous. It's the same with the genetic code in DNA. Which brings me back that the evidence is so stacked in favor of this being done with out a Creator is becomes ridiculous.

Larry_g1s
10-08-2008, 12:31 PM
Erm, no. You're forgetting one thing, and that's natural selection. Natural selection doesn't work with out NEW information being added. Which is why I stated earlier that the only place natural selection with mutation works, is in comic books. In order to go from a reptile to a bird (which evolution through natural selection teaches) you have to add new information in to the DNA of a reptile, information that is not there.

Stooch
10-08-2008, 12:35 PM
Natural selection doesn't work with out NEW information being added. Which is why I stated earlier that the only place natural selection with mutation works, is in comic books. In order to go from a reptile to a bird (which evolution through natural selection teaches) you have to add new information in to the DNA of a reptile, information that is not there.

you would have to be completely ignorant in genetics in order to write this paragraph. high school level genetics mind you.

Stooch
10-08-2008, 12:37 PM
But go back to my leaves example being arranged in the form of the two letters "HI". The probability is so stacked in favor that it took intellect to arrange the leaves in such a manner that to believe anything else becomes ridiculous. It's the same with the genetic code in DNA. Which brings me back that the evidence is so stacked in favor of this being done with out a Creator is becomes ridiculous.

MODERATOR SEZ: Patently offensive language merits a 3-day suspension of privileges. Please go sit in the sad corner.

mattclary
10-08-2008, 12:38 PM
Larry, I would like to hear your response to what I addressed to you earlier. I'm going to treat you rationally and with respect.

Larry_g1s
10-08-2008, 12:40 PM
you would have to be completely ignorant in genetics in order to write this paragraph. high school level genetics mind you.Put your money where your mouth is. The more I have shown what & how the genetic code works, and answered your question, your comments have only shown your ignorance. This has been my point with you stooch. You havent' brought anything to this discussion but mudslinging/namecalling/and demeaning comments. Put up or shut up.

mattclary
10-08-2008, 12:40 PM
You are pretty much dead wrong. First, I don't deal in American absolutes of conservatism and liberalism.

Secondly in my small and insignificant country the right call themselves liberals and the left call themselves socialists which is a more fitting word. But of course you can't have the word socialism in the US and if I'm not mistaken it would be equated to communism which is something else entirely.

As for my political view I am planted smack in the middle of the political picture here in Denmark. But since I have to vote one way, I'm currently slanted towards the liberals (your conservatives).

But the fact is that I don't fully support one wing or the other. They're both incredibly stupid on various issues unique to each wing.

Gotta go with one of them though...

Oh, and we don't have a two party election here, there's a couple of major parties, but a lot of mid-sized and smaller parties on both wings that get a fair amount of influence as they are needed for the larger parties to attain majority and form government.

I forgot to add. Thankfully religion doesn't play a tangible role in politics here. Politicians don't go around thanking God or any such nonsense. They'd get bloody well ridiculed and laughed at.

Sorry if I mis-read you!

I assume if one person does not get a majority of the votes, there is a runoff? That would hugely change our system for the better, so, it will never happen. The two parties would never allow it.

Lightwolf
10-08-2008, 12:41 PM
Natural selection doesn't work with out NEW information being added.
If you modify tiny bits for a perios that's long enough, it will seem to be new if you skip the intermediate steps.


In order to go from a reptile to a bird (which evolution through natural selection teaches) you have to add new information in to the DNA of a reptile, information that is not there.
Gills->lungs, extremities->wings (on various species) - you've got the steps in plain sight.

Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

I think the main issue is that we, as humans, can't fathom what it means to evolve for hundreds of thousands of years, that is well beyond our normal range of interest (which is more like a 5 second attention span, followed by a fuzzy notion of a future and preceeded by something we call the past, even if we can't precisely remember it).
That's what makes it improbable to believe it, even if the facts are there. However, a bearded man in the sky (although closer aligned to our human centric thinking) is even more ludicrous.

One thought: Logical and scientific thinking has actually progressed mankind in the past couple of thousand years. So we might actually have a chance to fully understand due to it.

Cheers,
Mike

Larry_g1s
10-08-2008, 12:43 PM
Larry, I would like to hear your response to what I addressed to you earlier. I'm going to treat you rationally and with respect.I appreciate that Mattclary, it seems like others have a tougher time doing so. I forget that one can be 13 or 14 yrs old and still get on message boards.

I'm sorry I missed your response, can you please let me know what # it is I'd be happy to discuss this with you or anyone else that can handle an adult conversation.

matix
10-08-2008, 12:45 PM
There needs to be a new law "Seperation of Church and online forums"...or better yet, "Seperation of Church and EVERYTHING".

mattclary
10-08-2008, 12:47 PM
hey i took a really hard **** the other day and ...


Stooch, I understand you feel strongly, but could you tone down the vitriol a bit. It's us right-wing folks who are supposed to be hate-filled. ;)

mattclary
10-08-2008, 12:49 PM
I appreciate that Mattclary, it seems like others have a tougher time doing so. I forget that one can be 13 or 14 yrs old and still get on message boards.

I'm sorry I missed your response, can you please let me know what # it is I'd be happy to discuss this with you or anyone else that can handle an adult conversation.

#91

Larry_g1s
10-08-2008, 12:53 PM
If you modify tiny bits for a perios that's long enough, it will seem to be new if you skip the intermediate steps.

Gills->lungs, extremities->wings (on various species) - you've got the steps in plain sight.
I think the main issue is that we, as humans, can't fathom what it means to evolve for hundreds of thousands of years, that is well beyond our normal range of interest (which is more like a 5 second attention span, followed by a fuzzy notion of a future and preceeded by something we call the past, even if we can't precisely remember it).
That's what makes it improbable to believe it, even if the facts are there. However, a bearded man in the sky (although closer aligned to our human centric thinking) is even more ludicrous.

One thought: Logical and scientific thinking has actually progressed mankind in the past couple of thousand years. So we might actually have a chance to fully understand due to it.

Cheers,
MikeI understand what you're saying Mike, but The genetic code inside the DNA:

-digital (it is expressible in discrete mathematical terms)
- error correcting (there are half a dozen know levels of error corrections)
- redundant (certain genes have two or three back up copies in case an error occurs in a primary gene and goes undetected, that primary gene is turned off with the back up turned on) another form of error correction
- overlaying

It is not only set up for these types of things not to happen, but secondly, in in the absolute majority of all the mutations that have been test (tested being true science), they have produced nothing but negative results. Thirdly, even if the the "steps" look like each other, the fact of the matter is a reptile doesn't have the information in it's genetic make up to produce wings, period. So in order for a lizard to mutate to a bird with wings, new information that isn't there must be added. It's impossible with out.

Another point is science is the study of what is also observable, anything outside of that is speculation. In everything we've observed everything reproduces after it's own kind. Dog's only reproduce dogs, cats only reproduce cats, so on and and so forth. They might reproduce, different kinds of cats, dogs, etc. (micro evolution), but in all of our observations they have only reproduce the same species, after their kinds.

I have a lecture from a Dr. on the genetic code that you might appreciate being a programmer. If you're interested in it I can send it to you.

Larry_g1s
10-08-2008, 12:54 PM
There needs to be a new law "Seperation of Church and online forums"...or better yet, "Seperation of Church and EVERYTHING".And the Christians are the ones that are intolerant right? (rolls eyes)

Stooch
10-08-2008, 12:58 PM
Put your money where your mouth is. The more I have shown what & how the genetic code works, and answered your question, your comments have only shown your ignorance. This has been my point with you stooch. You havent' brought anything to this discussion but mudslinging/namecalling/and demeaning comments. Put up or shut up.

no you didnt tell me how the genetic code works. you have shown to me and everyone else that you have no idea how it really works. I dont have to teach you anything. you are free to go and read a book. Im sorry its hard to treat you with respect when you insult with your ignorant remarks and your constant attempts to "teach" and "explain" with complete and utter b.s

and your refusal to follow through and apply your own logic to your own arguments.

mattclary
10-08-2008, 12:59 PM
Another point is science is the study of what is also observable, anything outside of that is speculation. In everything we've observed everything reproduces after it's own kind. Dog's only reproduce dogs, cats only reproduce cats, so on and and so forth.

Larry, do you know what you get when a greyhound and a rottweiler mate? A doberman pinscher. I took some liberty with that, as there were other breeds involved, but if you look, you can see those two pretty easily.

Now, just because man forced the breeding does not eliminate the science involved to have occurred on it's own.

Oedo 808
10-08-2008, 01:05 PM
Another point is science is the study of what is also observable, anything outside of that is speculation. In everything we've observed everything reproduces after it's own kind. Dog's only reproduce dogs, cats only reproduce cats, so on and and so forth. They might reproduce, different kinds of cats, dogs, etc. (micro evolution), but in all of our observations they have only reproduce the same species, after their kinds.


Unless God adds DNA right? Or did I miss something?

Lightwolf
10-08-2008, 01:09 PM
Unless God adds DNA right? Or did I miss something?
DNA is HIS secret message to us, and our goal in life is to unravel it to finally understand HIM. (Especially since those books are so darned cryptic and easily misunderstood and misinterpreted it seems).

Cheers,
Mike

P.S. Did you notice how DNA, HIS and HIM are three letters each, in capitals to boot?

CMT
10-08-2008, 01:10 PM
Natural selection doesn't work with out NEW information being added. Which is why I stated earlier that the only place natural selection with mutation works, is in comic books. In order to go from a reptile to a bird (which evolution through natural selection teaches) you have to add new information in to the DNA of a reptile, information that is not there.

My daughter has a rare gene duplication in her #2 chromosome. It's a very small duplication, but it's there. It wasn't passed on by me or my wife as we've been tested. Gene duplication is one way to add more information.

Lightwolf
10-08-2008, 01:14 PM
I assume if one person does not get a majority of the votes, there is a runoff?
Over here the parties have to form a coalition. I.e. currently the main left wing and the main right wing party form a coalition. The candiate of the party with more votes usually gets the job (in this case Angela Merkel as the chancellor, as the president has no real power).
It would also be possible for more smaller parties to form a coalition against a larger one if they can get a majority.

Cheers,
Mike

Oedo 808
10-08-2008, 01:21 PM
My daughter has a rare gene duplication in her #2 chromosome. It's a very small duplication, but it's there. It wasn't passed on by me or my wife as we've been tested. Gene duplication is one way to add more information.

I am no geneticist so I don't know what that involves, I hope that any complications should any arise, are not too severe for her.

CMT
10-08-2008, 01:34 PM
I am no geneticist so I don't know what that involves, I hope that any complications should any arise, are not too severe for her.

The geneticists painted a grim picture for her and said she would be mentally retarded, socially withdrawn, etc... but she's 9 now and exceeded every single expectation. She's actually very outgoing (to the point of being obnoxious) and doing very well considering the prognosis. The only real signs anything is wrong is that she's at about a 5 year old vocabulary. But she actually has a very logical mind.

Shows you what the geneticists really know.... :)

shrox
10-08-2008, 01:37 PM
King George, as opposed to George Washington, I mean. Obviously we know who the current congenital-idiot-George-in-chief is.

King George
George Washington
George Cloney
George W. Bush

One of these things is not like the others, one of these things is kinda the same, can you guess with one is doing it's own thing, now it's time to play our game. - PBS' Electric Company childrens show

shrox
10-08-2008, 01:41 PM
No, the notion of God is sick. It's a mental sickness passed on from mentally incapacitated parents to innocent children.

Please, don't do that.

Iain
10-08-2008, 01:44 PM
But go back to my leaves example being arranged in the form of the two letters "HI". The probability is so stacked in favor that it took intellect to arrange the leaves in such a manner that to believe anything else becomes ridiculous. It's the same with the genetic code in DNA. Which brings me back that the evidence is so stacked in favor of this being done with out a Creator is becomes ridiculous.

This is what's rejected today as an 'argument from ignorance.'
Something that relies upon a lack of knowledge to back up its own conclusions. We are very young as a scientific species but we've already managed to explain an awful lot and what we can't explain is being investigated. That is the purpose and definition of science.

You should read this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/sep/01/schools.research

shrox
10-08-2008, 01:48 PM
If there could be a being much like ourselves, but could simultaneously know both the trajectory and velocity of a quark, would that be attribute of a "God"?

Lightwolf
10-08-2008, 01:51 PM
If there could be a being much like ourselves, but could simultaneously know both the trajectory and velocity of a quark, would that be attribute of a "God"?
No, by definition it would need to know the trajectory, velocity and all states of all quarks at any time.

Cheers,
Mike

shrox
10-08-2008, 01:53 PM
No, by definition it would need to know the trajectory, velocity and all states of all quarks at any time.

Cheers,
Mike


Yes, That is what I meant then. If a being could know this, would that be an attribute of a "God"?

Lightwolf
10-08-2008, 01:58 PM
Yes, That is what I meant then. If a being could know this, would that be an attribute of a "God"?
Only if it could put that knowledge to use - and, obviously, be able to manipulate on the same level at least.
That would at least be a fairly modern interpretation of what most people refer to when they speak of a "God" (in the monotheistic, omnipotent sense).

Cheers,
Mike

shrox
10-08-2008, 02:03 PM
Only if it could put that knowledge to use - and, obviously, be able to manipulate on the same level at least.
That would at least be a fairly modern interpretation of what most people refer to when they speak of a "God" (in the monotheistic, omnipotent sense).

Cheers,
Mike


So, there is an tangible attribute that could be applied to a "God". (Tangible admittedly being used loosely here. More of a detectable effect maybe. I have no idea how to measure such an effect.)

Oedo 808
10-08-2008, 02:05 PM
The geneticists painted a grim picture for her and said she would be mentally retarded, socially withdrawn, etc... but she's 9 now and exceeded every single expectation. She's actually very outgoing (to the point of being obnoxious) and doing very well considering the prognosis. The only real signs anything is wrong is that she's at about a 5 year old vocabulary. But she actually has a very logical mind.

Shows you what the geneticists really know.... :)

It's always good when the 'experts' get it wrong, but oh so much more for a story like this.

I'm glad to hear that she's doing so well. :)

Lightwolf
10-08-2008, 02:09 PM
So, there is an tangible attribute that could be applied to a "God".
I see what you're getting at. I don't think so... again, by definition. Omnipotence implies that it isn't necessarily tangible.

And if there is no omnipotence then it doesn't fit the definition, does it?

Cheers,
Mike

Larry_g1s
10-08-2008, 02:11 PM
Larry, do you know what you get when a greyhound and a rottweiler mate? A doberman pinscher. I took some liberty with that, as there were other breeds involved, but if you look, you can see those two pretty easily.

Now, just because man forced the breeding does not eliminate the science involved to have occurred on it's own.My point still stands Mattclary, that is micro evolution, not macro evolution. Micro evolution is just a misapplied name to variations with in a species, which we can observe/test/repeat -true science. Macro evolution is one species to another species, which we've never observed/tested/repeated - not true science and in the realm of faith.

Larry_g1s
10-08-2008, 02:14 PM
My daughter has a rare gene duplication in her #2 chromosome. It's a very small duplication, but it's there. It wasn't passed on by me or my wife as we've been tested. Gene duplication is one way to add more information.I didn't say mutations didn't occur. But with the absolute majority, they are negative not positive. It's the very thing the genetic code is designed NOT to do.

Larry_g1s
10-08-2008, 02:15 PM
I see what you're getting at. I don't think so... again, by definition. Omnipotence implies that it isn't necessarily tangible.

And if there is no omnipotence then it doesn't fit the definition, does it?

Cheers,
MikeDisagree Lightwolf. I can look at a painting, and know that it had a painter with out ever seeing, touching, smelling, him/her. What is produced is evidence of the painter.

Larry_g1s
10-08-2008, 02:19 PM
This is what's rejected today as an 'argument from ignorance.'
Something that relies upon a lack of knowledge to back up its own conclusions. We are very young as a scientific species but we've already managed to explain an awful lot and what we can't explain is being investigated. That is the purpose and definition of science.

You should read this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/sep/01/schools.researchThis isn't a lack of knowledge, according to information science a language or code cannot arrive at chance. So my argument in using the "HI" isn't the complexity of the arrangement, but that it has meaning. Being there is no intrinsic value in the arrangement of the letters, it is only logical that a mind applied it there. This is consistent with the rest of what we observe -true science.

Ps. I'll read it if you listen to something from me.

CMT
10-08-2008, 02:30 PM
I didn't say mutations didn't occur. But with the absolute majority, they are negative not positive. It's the very thing the genetic code is designed NOT to do.

Hold up. So mutations are almost always negative, not positive? So what happens when they are positive?

Actually coming to think about it a bit more, just by allowing the possibility for beneficial mutation, you're allowing the possibility of evolution.

Either you are against evolution, in which all mutation is regarded as neither beneficial or negative, or you are for evolution which allows for both positive and negative mutations.

Lightwolf
10-08-2008, 02:30 PM
I can look at a painting, and know that it had a painter with out ever seeing, touching, smelling, him/her. What is produced is evidence of the painter.
As neverko said, it is evidence of something. Heck, unless you closely and scientifically examine the painting you won't even know if that wasn't the original state of what you're looking had, never mind knowing how it got to be what it is.
On top of that, even if you would it wouldn't tell you much about the actual will behind the design. Certainly not enough to warrant people to adjust their lives to meet the demands of that will (which I'd actually consider as blasphemous in a religious sense).

Cheers,
Mike

Lightwolf
10-08-2008, 02:31 PM
Actually coming to think about it a bit more, just by allowing the possibility for beneficial mutation, you're allowing the possibility of evolution.
Yup, because that's where this survival thang comes into play.

Cheers,
Mike

shrox
10-08-2008, 02:33 PM
Disagree Lightwolf. I can look at a painting, and know that it had a painter with out ever seeing, touching, smelling, him/her. What is produced is evidence of the painter.

Well, I don't agree with that either. Paintings and 747s are not self replicating, humans and bacteria are. Things like viruses and prions could be viewed as "failed" life or "emerging" life, since they are not truly alive in the traditional sense, one requiring a host and the other more of a misfolded protein.

I like this argument, Jesus was either a liar, insane, or exactly who he claimed to be.

Larry_g1s
10-08-2008, 02:34 PM
But in many cases you can't see if the painting was done by a kid, an adult, a monkey or an elephant. So the fact that splatters of paint on a canvas exists proves precious little about it's origin.The fact of the matter is just what you pointed out, it was done by someone. And for one to equate the beauty/design/complexity of our world as splatters of paint, would be ignorant or dishonest. When you see a beautiful painting or some render someone shows on the board, you would be crazy to think it was not done by someone.

Larry_g1s
10-08-2008, 02:40 PM
Hold up. So mutations are almost always negative, not positive? So what happens when they are positive?

Actually coming to think about it a bit more, just by allowing the possibility for beneficial mutation, you're allowing the possibility of evolution.

Either you are against evolution, in which all mutation is regarded as neither beneficial or negative, or you are for evolution which allows for both positive and negative mutations.The possibility is so slim it's mute. But let's run with what your asking...it doesn't change the fact that in order to be worth anything it would not only have to be beneficial (ie. .001 percent of the information for wing doesn't exactly profit any reptile), secondly, it takes two to mate to produce. So if the other creature mating doesn't have that same exact mutation, it's going to be eventual lost. You daughter has two eye, ears, arms, legs, one nose, etc. because both you and your wife had that in your genetic code to pass on to your daughter.

shrox
10-08-2008, 02:42 PM
Hold up. So mutations are almost always negative, not positive? So what happens when they are positive? ...

You get me.

I lost the tip and bone of my right pinkie, from the nail to the tip was gone, bone and all. It grew back, complete with nail. It looks normal, not even any scarring. My doctor said he had never seen such a complete regeneration that grew in so correctly.

In junior high school my IQ was 212, I finished the test in record time (I don't recall which test though, I assembled blocks to match shapes in pictures at one point).

My father was 82 when I was born, his father was "elderly" too.

For some reason, I can't have kids. So much for advancement in the gene pool...

BlueApple
10-08-2008, 02:42 PM
Macro evolution is one species to another species, which we've never observed/tested/repeated - not true science and in the realm of faith.

Not sure if this is accurate, but aren't horses and donkeys members of different species? They are able to produce mules (and hinnies I think.) Is this evidence of something new being borne from different species?

shrox
10-08-2008, 02:45 PM
Macro evolution is one species to another species, which we've never observed/tested/repeated - not true science and in the realm of faith.

Not sure if this is accurate, but aren't horses and donkeys members of different species? They are able to produce mules (and hinnies I think.) Is this evidence of something new being borne from different species?

Mules are most always sterile. I guess I am a mule.

Lightwolf
10-08-2008, 02:45 PM
And for one to equate the beauty/design/complexity of our world as splatters of paint, would be ignorant or dishonest.
Sorry, but that's an argument I don't buy at all, it doesn't prove a thing.
First of all, you have no basis of comparison - which means you're talking about an absolute. You can't say: Our world is nicer than any other...
Also, of course you'd see it that way. This is the natural habitat that formed a species of which we are the peak (for the time being, and yes, arguably as well)... over millions of years. Obviously it's beautiful to us, it shaped us long enough, there is no alternative to achieve the same end result (us) from a natural selection pov.

Heck, on a small scale that even happens to us on relatively small matters (home sweet home being an example).

Cheers,
Mike

Lightwolf
10-08-2008, 02:49 PM
The possibility is so slim it's mute.
But there is plenty of time (beyond our comprehension for sure) plus ample opportunity.


...secondly, it takes two to mate to produce. So if the other creature mating doesn't have that same exact mutation, it's going to be eventual lost. You daughter has two eye, ears, arms, legs, one nose, etc. because both you and your wife had that in your genetic code to pass on to your daughter.
Not necessarily, and this is where you slept in biology ;) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel

A simple mutation is nothing but a trait... and even more complex mutations can be inherited.

Cheers,
Mike

Iain
10-08-2008, 02:50 PM
This isn't a lack of knowledge, according to information science a language or code cannot arrive at chance. So my argument in using the "HI" isn't the complexity of the arrangement, but that it has meaning. Being there is no intrinsic value in the arrangement of the letters, it is only logical that a mind applied it there. This is consistent with the rest of what we observe -true science.


Leaves forming 'HI' in the wind has no meaning other than to English speaking humans who recognise it as part of their preformed language. It's pure coincidence.

The lack of knowledge I referred to was in the fact that we don't know everything about our origins but we study it and we are making progress.
To latch on to the gaps in our current knowledge and ascribe mystical meaning to it is fanciful at best.

You use science to 'prove' the probability of a creator and yet throw it out when trying to define the creator's origins or nature.
That's having your cake and eating it. Greedy boy.

Larry_g1s
10-08-2008, 02:51 PM
Sorry, but that's an argument I don't buy at all, it doesn't prove a thing.
First of all, you have no basis of comparison - which means you're talking about an absolute. You can't say: Our world is nicer than any other...
Also, of course you'd see it that way. This is the natural habitat that formed a species of which we are the peak (for the time being, and yes, arguably as well)... over millions of years. Obviously it's beautiful to us, it shaped us long enough, there is no alternative to achieve the same end result (us) from a natural selection pov.

Heck, on a small scale that even happens to us on relatively small matters (home sweet home being an example).

Cheers,
MikeI understand what your saying, but the fact that we cannot compare our world with another only proves the uniqueness/complexity/design behind what we see, thus showing evidence for a creator.

shrox
10-08-2008, 02:52 PM
But there is plenty of time (beyond our comprehension for sure) plus ample opportunity.

Not necessarily, and this is where you slept in biology ;) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel

A simple mutation is nothing but a trait... and even more complex mutations can be inherited.

Cheers,
Mike

Often a successful pairing results in an offspring that cannot reproduce, many hybrid flowers are like this.

Oedo 808
10-08-2008, 02:58 PM
I understand what your saying, but the fact that we cannot compare our world with another only proves the uniqueness/complexity/design behind what we see, thus showing evidence for a creator.

Hey man, you had not too bad an innings as far as these discussions normally go, but when your train left it's tracks it sprouted wings and flew off into the sunset.

ercaxus
10-08-2008, 02:59 PM
What I hate is that people who have supposedly seen UFO's are considered kooks in our society but people that believe in a invisible bearded man in the sky are respected. I don't see any difference between the two and actually, I'm more likely to give more credibility to the UFO person because they've actually seen something physical.

Get this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szn6cG8fQl8

Larry_g1s
10-08-2008, 02:59 PM
Leaves forming 'HI' in the wind has no meaning other than to English speaking humans who recognise it as part of their preformed language. It's pure coincidence.

The lack of knowledge I referred to was in the fact that we don't know everything about our origins but we study it and we are making progress.
To latch on to the gaps in our current knowledge and ascribe mystical meaning to it is fanciful at best.

You use science to 'prove' the probability of a creator and yet throw it out when trying to define the creator's origins or nature.
That's having your cake and eating it. Greedy boy.I apologize, I thought you where referring to something else about lack of knowledge.

Can I ask you something, just so I know we're on the same page. If you walked out your door tomorrow, and right in front of your door you saw an arrangement of leaves that spelled the word "hi". Would you conclude that it happened by chance or someone did that?

I'm willing to bet, based upon logic, that you would never ever assume that happened by chance. Not just because of the complexity of the arrangement, but because the arrangement means something. This is where I'm going with the DNA genetic code. The arrangement of the letter H before the I (in the english language), only means something because a mind(s) has applied meaning to it. There is not intrinsic/inherit value in something that is shaped in what we call the letter H or in a shape that we call a letter I. They are a language/code and no, none, Ø language/code can arrive with out a mind. SOooooo, if we see that there is a language/code written on a molecule, it is only logical (based upon what we do know about languages and codes) that a mind wrote that. Evolution, or random chance chemistry will never ever produce a language.

Now, I'm not saying someone can't believe in evolution, but don't say it's science because it goes contrary to it.

shrox
10-08-2008, 03:00 PM
I understand what your saying, but the fact that we cannot compare our world with another only proves the uniqueness/complexity/design behind what we see, thus showing evidence for a creator.

I do know Jesus (I'm Quaker, like Amish that can drive and watch TV), but I don't think that the existence of our universe proves a creator. Jesus even said that we would strain for some physical proof (give us a sign so that we may believe, but none will be given), so I don't subscribe to the existence as proof theory.

What does it matter if others believe or not? If they come to a different conclusion on what is in the box before it is opened, what does it matter? It's not their box, nor are the contents. But if they deny the possibility of the box, then they are rather limited in what they can perceive.

shrox
10-08-2008, 03:04 PM
You get me.

I lost the tip and bone of my right pinkie, from the nail to the tip was gone, bone and all. It grew back, complete with nail. It looks normal, not even any scarring. My doctor said he had never seen such a complete regeneration that grew in so correctly.

In junior high school my IQ was 212, I finished the test in record time (I don't recall which test though, I assembled blocks to match shapes in pictures at one point).

My father was 82 when I was born, his father was "elderly" too.

For some reason, I can't have kids. So much for advancement in the gene pool...

I didn't post this to brag, I was just pointing out that even a good mutation is worthless if it can't be passed on. Assuming of course, some mutation in my genes.

Larry_g1s
10-08-2008, 03:06 PM
Hey man, you had not too bad an innings as far as these discussions normally go, but when your train left it's tracks it sprouted wings and flew off into the sunset.Maybe my point wasn't clear...lol. My point is that because you can't point to another example, even with the absolute best and greatest telescopes money can by, doesn't help out the cause of evolution. But even if we could, let's say E.T. was out there...it still wouldn't solve were the code/language came from to produce E.T. . Einstein proved this universe isn't infinite, that it has a beginning, so you can't keep going back.

adamredwoods
10-08-2008, 03:06 PM
I understand what your saying, but the fact that we cannot compare our world with another only proves the uniqueness/complexity/design behind what we see, thus showing evidence for a creator.

Using a negative to logically prove the existence of a positive?
Sorry-- there is God, or Creator, or Buddha-- but it will be beyond ANY living creature's comprehension. To create something like your neuron pathways, require millions and billions of years of experimentation....

shrox
10-08-2008, 03:10 PM
Using a negative to logically prove the existence of a positive?
Sorry-- there is God, or Creator, or Buddha-- but it will be beyond ANY living creature's comprehension. To create something like your neuron pathways, require millions and billions of years of experimentation....


Along those lines, such a being could simply try successive big bang and collapse after big bang and collapse. Eventually one universe will have exactly what this being is looking for.

shrox
10-08-2008, 03:11 PM
You guys just wait until Bog wakes up...

adamredwoods
10-08-2008, 03:13 PM
Maybe my point wasn't clear...lol. My point is that because you can't point to another example, even with the absolute best and greatest telescopes money can by, doesn't help out the cause of evolution. But even if we could, let's say E.T. was out there...it still wouldn't solve were the code/language came from to produce E.T. . Einstein proved this universe isn't infinite, that it has a beginning, so you can't keep going back.

No, but using the techniques and methods that WE HAVE NOW, scientists have proven that their ideas work. THey have proven creatures that existed even though we didn't discover them. They have used DNA testing to determine more interesting discoveries than ever before. And evolution fits into this method so well.

I encourage research. It's a great topic!
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/transitional.html
" In 2004, a field crew digging in the Canadian Arctic unearthed the fossil remains of a half-fish, half-amphibian that would all but confirm paleontologists' theories about how land-dwelling tetrapods (four-limbed animals, including us) evolved from their fish ancestors. [...] it is a classic example of a transitional form, one that bridges the evolutionary gap between two quite different types of animal. In this slide show, see this and four other well-known fossil transitions, which clearly indicate Darwinian evolution in action. "

adamredwoods
10-08-2008, 03:18 PM
And Dawinism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angraecum
" In the case of Angraecum sesquipedale, a species from Madagascar, on observing the 30cm spur in the lip, Charles Darwin made the hypothesis that, since the nectar was at the bottom of the spur, a pollinator must exist with a tongue at least that long. Otherwise the orchid could never be pollinated. At the time, he was not believed. However, in 1903, the predicted pollinator was discovered, a hawk moth then named Xanthopan morganii praedicta ("praedicta" meaning "the predicted one"). It has an appropriately long proboscis. The specific name sesquipedale means "one foot and a half", referring to the length of the spur. This is a perfect example of mutual dependence of an orchid and a specific pollinator. "

Larry_g1s
10-08-2008, 03:20 PM
I do know Jesus (I'm Quaker, like Amish that can drive and watch TV), but I don't think that the existence of our universe proves a creator. Jesus even said that we would strain for some physical proof (give us a sign so that we may believe, but none will be given), so I don't subscribe to the existence as proof theory.

What does it matter if others believe or not? If they come to a different conclusion on what is in the box before it is opened, what does it matter? It's not their box, nor are the contents. But if they deny the possibility of the box, then they are rather limited in what they can perceive.The problem goes back to what I posted the reason why people don't believe. It isn't a matter of of evidence, it's the implications of that evidence. If the evidence points to a Creator, who makes the rules? He does. He are we accountable to? Him. Conversely, if there is ape in your ancestry, who makes the rules? You do. Who are you accountable to? yourself. It's the same reason I brought up why Darwin popularized evolution, it was not on scientific grounds, but emotional. He recently lost his daughter, which I assume made him recognize his own mortally, and he didn't like the idea of accountability to a Creator. Jesus said people don't come in to the light because they like darkness rather then light. If you're accountable to God, you have to admit sin is sin, Jesus says people don't want to be accountable or let go of sin. And I'm not holier then thou. I'm a sinner just like anyone here and in no less in need of what Jesus did on the cross on my behalf. The difference is a willingness to bring it to Him.

If one is unwilling to admit there is a creator, they are unwilling to admit accountability Him. If they are unwilling to admit accountability to Him, they are unwilling to admit sin/wrong/wickness. I one is unwilling to admit sin, then one is unwilling to come to Him for the the forgiveness of that sin. And Jesus said, if one does not come for the forgiveness of sin, they will have to pay for it themselves, and that is eternity in punishment. This is why I care why someone believes. I don't gain anything from it. It is for the soul that should meet his Creator in his own sin, instead of having it washed away by what His creator did for him.

Short answer long...

shrox
10-08-2008, 03:23 PM
No, but using the techniques and methods that WE HAVE NOW, scientists have proven that their ideas work. THey have proven creatures that existed even though we didn't discover them. They have used DNA testing to determine more interesting discoveries than ever before. And evolution fits into this method so well.

I encourage research. It's a great topic!
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/transitional.html
" In 2004, a field crew digging in the Canadian Arctic unearthed the fossil remains of a half-fish, half-amphibian that would all but confirm paleontologists' theories about how land-dwelling tetrapods (four-limbed animals, including us) evolved from their fish ancestors. [...] it is a classic example of a transitional form, one that bridges the evolutionary gap between two quite different types of animal. In this slide show, see this and four other well-known fossil transitions, which clearly indicate Darwinian evolution in action. "


I saw a very good show that proposed that crustaceans where the first to venture onto dry land. This immediately made great sense to me, as insects today don't have lungs, rather something more like airgills and vents in their exoskeletons (shells).

By the way, Darwin took the voyage aboard the Beagle to the Galapagos because he was searching for a mechanism for the creation theory, his observation of birds of the same species having distinctly different bills is what is credited with his realisations about evolution.

Larry_g1s
10-08-2008, 03:23 PM
Hey, I've gotta chill for a bit...I've got a large project with a short deadline (not a good mix). I'll try to be back and discuss things further, with those that are willing to at least be respectful and sincere, I don't have time for the others.

Take care everyone. :)

CMT
10-08-2008, 03:28 PM
The problem goes back to what I posted the reason why people don't believe. It isn't a matter of of evidence, it's the implications of that evidence. If the evidence points to a Creator, who makes the rules? He does. He are we accountable to? Him. Conversely, if there is ape in your ancestry, who makes the rules? You do. Who are you accountable to? yourself. It's the same reason I brought up why Darwin popularized evolution, it was not on scientific grounds, but emotional. He recently lost his daughter, which I assume made him recognize his own mortally, and he didn't like the idea of accountability to a Creator. Jesus said people don't come in to the light because they like darkness rather then light. If you're accountable to God, you have to admit sin is sin, Jesus says people don't want to be accountable or let go of sin. And I'm not holier then thou. I'm a sinner just like anyone here and in no less in need of what Jesus did on the cross on my behalf. The difference is a willingness to bring it to Him.

If one is unwilling to admit there is a creator, they are unwilling to admit accountability Him. If they are unwilling to admit accountability to Him, they are unwilling to admit sin/wrong/wickness. I one is unwilling to admit sin, then one is unwilling to come to Him for the the forgiveness of that sin. And Jesus said, if one does not come for the forgiveness of sin, they will have to pay for it themselves, and that is eternity in punishment. This is why I care why someone believes. I don't gain anything from it. It is for the soul that should meet his Creator in his own sin, instead of having it washed away by what His creator did for him.

Short answer long...

Believe it or not, one can believe in evolution and a God at the same time. In fact there are many, like me, who believe evolution is just part of the system he created. I don't believe the Bible word for word and think that the world is only 6000 years old. Too many variables and reasons for not taking the Bible so literally.

But the only evidence I can find of a creator is the complexity of nature and the intricacies of these "laws" of nature to be able to predict events. This suggests to me an intelligence behind it all. But it is not proof. That's why we have faith.

Lightwolf
10-08-2008, 03:57 PM
I understand what your saying, but the fact that we cannot compare our world with another only proves the uniqueness/complexity/design behind what we see, thus showing evidence for a creator.
Actually, it only shows us our limitations. And it doesn't prove any of the items you mention, we can't compare this we can't know. It's a non issue really and proves neither your or my point.

We don't know about the uniqueness.
We can't judge the complexity (i.e. let somebody from the most remote place in the world judge the complexity of software I wrote by looking at it run... without that person having even known about computers, probably coming from a cultural background that counts to three and only knows "many" beyond that).
Design? We can't judge that either, evolution accounts for that. If it wouldn't work we wouldn't even be able to discuss it. And who knows, it probably failed elsewhere (and I bet it's not discussed there and nobody awes at the "design" of it).

Cheers,
Mike

Lightwolf
10-08-2008, 04:04 PM
He are we accountable to? Him.
Why? Even if he does exist... who says we're accountable to him? Are you 100% sure that's his master plan? (Attention: trick question).

Cheers,
Mike

starbase1
10-08-2008, 04:04 PM
I wouldn't mind Christians so much if they actually acted like their founder wished...

But when you get the Christian right (and there's a contradiction in terms), starting wars, supporting the death penalty, reclassifying torture, transferring money from the poor to the rich, using white phosphorus on civilians, monetizing the church, legislating homophobia (and as far as I can tell, Jesus never thought sex worth discussing at all), and then telling us about how wonderful and caring their faith is, I want to puke.

Ghandi was a better Christian than any neocon.

I'm a better Christian than Bush, and I'm an atheist!

And there is absolutely no need to prove all gods are impossible or anything like it.

If someone tells me that the bible is a good moral guide, all I need to do is read Leviticus to see that this is clearly not true. All I need to do is consider God the baby killer (slaughtering all the first born in Egypt), God the biological warfare fan (sending plagues), or God killing everyone on earth except Noahs family to realise that this is 100% bollocks.

If someone tells me the bible is true, I need only look at the way it directly contradicts itself in different sections to realise this is obviously and unambiguously false.

And if someone tells me that Christians are good people, I need only look at a selection of popes and republicans to work out where this idea falls down.

shrox
10-08-2008, 04:09 PM
I wouldn't mind Christians so much if they actually acted like their founder wished...

But when you get the Christian right (and there's a contradiction in terms), starting wars, supporting the death penalty, reclassifying torture, transferring money from the poor to the rich, using white phosphorus on civilians, monetizing the church, legislating homophobia (and as far as I can tell, Jesus never thought sex worth discussing at all), and then telling us about how wonderful and caring their faith is, I want to puke.

Ghandi was a better Christian than any neocon.

I'm a better Christian than Bush, and I'm an atheist!

And there is absolutely no need to prove all gods are impossible or anything like it.

If someone tells me that the bible is a good moral guide, all I need to do is read Leviticus to see that this is clearly not true. All I need to do is consider God the baby killer (slaughtering all the first born in Egypt), God the biological warfare fan (sending plagues), or God killing everyone on earth except Noahs family to realise that this is 100% bollocks.

If someone tells me the bible is true, I need only look at the way it directly contradicts itself in different sections to realise this is obviously and unambiguously false.

And if someone tells me that Christians are good people, I need only look at a selection of popes and republicans to work out where this idea falls down.

Then I am a Christian. Talk to me.

adamredwoods
10-08-2008, 04:11 PM
If one is unwilling to admit there is a creator, they are unwilling to admit accountability Him. If they are unwilling to admit accountability to Him, they are unwilling to admit sin/wrong/wickness.

Accountability and being humanitarian is a complex topic, that I think goes beyond religion. It is our natural born tendency to propagate a species, so we aren't going to be wicked, even without religion. Wolves are like this. Although, there are wolves that kill each other, as there are humans that kill each other.

Being wrong is a separate topic. We can be wrong in some cultures, while in others we can be right. Putting your feet up and showing your soles to another person is "wrong" in some places, but acceptable in others. Separate topic...

BUt back to accountability. Some brain doctors have discovered that religion may be an emotion, which has physical allocation in the brain. Epoleptic (sp?) patients sometimes experienced such an overwhelming closeness to God, that they thought they were Jesus. THe emotion went away after the seizure.

So if religion is a method of accountability, then we have it programmed into our brains already.

Lightwolf
10-08-2008, 04:11 PM
If someone tells me that the bible is a good moral guide....
Mind you, that depends on the interpretation. I.e. Lutheran protestants generally disregard the OT for guidance and just turn to the NT (the reason being that the NT fulfills the prophecy of the OT and thus has no further use) - and that has one central theme: love (as in love thy enemy).
At least that's what they tell them here, in the land of Martin Luther ;)

Cheers,
Mike

shrox
10-08-2008, 04:15 PM
BUt back to accountability. Some brain doctors have discovered that religion may be an emotion, which has physical allocation in the brain. Epoleptic (sp?) patients sometimes experienced such an overwhelming closeness to God, that they thought they were Jesus. THe emotion went away after the seizure.

So if religion is a method of accountability, then we have it programmed into our brains already.

It is popularly called the "God module".

adamredwoods
10-08-2008, 04:17 PM
And if someone tells me that Christians are good people, I need only look at a selection of popes and republicans to work out where this idea falls down.

There are Republicans that are Christian and (relatively) good people.
There are atheists that are really, bad people.

But I think the way it is, is that people WANT to be good. The problem is it feels so good to be bad! ;)

CMT
10-08-2008, 04:20 PM
And if someone tells me that Christians are good people, I need only look at a selection of popes and republicans to work out where this idea falls down.

As not every Atheist I've come across is as nice as you. :)

Sorry, I meant Pastafarianist...

Lightwolf
10-08-2008, 04:23 PM
There are Republicans that are Christian and (relatively) good people.
There are atheists that are really, bad people.

Soooo, religion doesn't necessarily make you a better or worse person (and truly, if there was a creator that actually cares for that, it wouldn't matter if you believe or not).

So what's the point?

On the other hand, would you worship a creator that actually only cares for worshipper, regardless of how they behave? That does sound a bit vain to me....

*shrugs*

Cheers,
Mike

Iain
10-08-2008, 04:39 PM
This suggests to me an intelligence behind it all. But it is not proof. That's why we have faith.

I can't completely discount the possibility some kind of a supreme being. Who knows for sure?
It is an easy answer to a lot of (currently) impossible questions.

What I don't get is the link from that to the devotion and sanctimoniousness that some religious people discover and go on to share with you at every opportunity.

That unwavering belief that they have found 'the way' and everyone else is doomed.

Lightwolf
10-08-2008, 04:41 PM
That unwavering belief that they have found 'the way' and everyone else is doomed.
I'm sure one could rationalise a sociological explanation for that.

Not me though, it's getting late and I'm tired from writing all those long words ;)

Cheers,
Mike

Limbus
10-08-2008, 04:42 PM
If one is unwilling to admit there is a creator, they are unwilling to admit accountability Him. If they are unwilling to admit accountability to Him, they are unwilling to admit sin/wrong/wickness.

I am only accountable to my own moral standards. I act the way I act because of my own standards and not because I believe I am accountable for my actions to some god. I dont think that one is acting good if he only does so because he fears the punishement.

And when someone acts according to the old testament it surely does not fit my standard.

ercaxus
10-08-2008, 04:50 PM
Science is the study of what is observable/repeatable/testable. None of that has been done with evolution. So no matter how much you may want it not to be so, to believe it it's faith.

Here's something you might want to read:
Scientists Discover Fish in Act of Evolution in Africa’s Greatest Lake (http://ecoworldly.com/2008/10/07/scientists-discover-fish-in-act-of-evolution-in-africas-greatest-lake/)

Red_Oddity
10-08-2008, 04:54 PM
Man ,this thread became big really fast.

Only thing i haven't seen yet in this derailed funny online past time is:

When you guys speak about God creating the universe, which god are we talking about? The Hebrew God?, Old testament God?, Quran God? Shiva?, Odin Vili and Ve?, Zeus, etc, etc? Or are we going to place bets on some god fight who gets the credits for creating the universe?

Also, notice how old religions become mythology? I wonder how long it takes for Christianity and other modern religions to become mythology aswell (guess Terry Pratchett was on to something with Small Gods)

Also, considering evolution, i think most of us are thinking in a much to small time scale, i see too many people here thinking that a .001% chance of a reproducable genetic mutation isn't enough to warrant evolution, BUT, when you add a large enough population that has offspring that comes to a reproductive age quite soon, and think in a large enough time scale (say millions of years), the chances of creating a modified gene pool all of a sudden becomes quite large.
Take that chance of a reproducable genetic mutation and turn the time scale up to a couple of hundred millions years, and the differences between species that come from a period in time spanning over tens of millions of years all of a sudden seems quite big.
At least that is what paleonthology has tough us.
That, or Bill Hicks was right with his 'prankster god' routine.

Also, i wish people just would tell their kids when they are, say six or eight, that it is all a big fat joke, that God is just like Santa Claus, it would atleast prevent silly threads like this one...Then again, what then would i do in the middle of the night for entertainment, internet porn gets old real fast you know.

shrox
10-08-2008, 04:57 PM
Also, i wish people just would tell their kids when they are, say six or eight, that it is all a big fat joke, that God is just like Santa Claus, it would atleast prevent silly threads like this one...Then again, what then would i do in the middle of the night for entertainment, internet porn gets old real fast you know.

I don't wish that. Who then is right?

ercaxus
10-08-2008, 05:05 PM
I don't wish that. Who then is right?

We are right. Humans.

adamredwoods
10-08-2008, 05:12 PM
We are right. Humans.

Humans are right AND left. They're everywhere!

shrox
10-08-2008, 05:25 PM
Humans are right AND left. They're everywhere!

Ambidextrous. What about the up and down?

T-Light
10-08-2008, 06:23 PM
For goodness sake.
We're arguing about what now? exactly? world politics or something else?

Back to business

Matt

Congress and the president should be able to put each other in check, that is the way it is designed.
:agree:

manholoz

As to broadcasting the US of A presidential debate, do we have a choice? I'm sure it's bundled with Baywatch, American Rugby (hehehe ok ok, football in my northern neighbour friends speech ).
But then, we´re supposed to know what AZ, KY, etc mean. Aztec? Azerbaijan? Kenya? Kayak?
Unfortunately, people who watch soap's and general tv, DONT watch election speeches, the USA's or anyone else's, it's why all our politicos get away with so much:thumbsdow

manholz

Food for thought. I'd say there should be an obligatory i.q. and psychological test, sort of an "anti doping" test of sorts for politicians, but then politicians are such nitwits here, we'ld have a power vacuum so big a black hole could be spontaneously created.
Oh yeah, we get it, signalling out your own country for preferential treatment? :D, I agree of course, we all ought to do that. Only politico's can vote for it, unfortunately it's like asking turkeys to vote for christmas:thumbsdow

prometheus

well the bad economy all around the world is showing up here to..this morning
3000 of the people at volvo was notified about loosing their jobs.
At Volvo? Bl**dy h*ll

Iain

Every time one of these threads come up, I try to stay away but in those long render moments, I just can't resist commenting and that's it. Sucked in!
You and me both. Can't help myself though, All the cr*p in Britain over the last few years and where do we stand?, freaking nowhere, no one's listening, wish we had viewers in the US and elsewhere actualy watching what our SOB's are up to.

Oh yeah, Mark, you started the flames here :D, I have a question, Stephen Fry's touring America at the mo, driving around in his London black cab, when i've heard you talk (VERY English), could He also be in Philly as we write? more than coincidence?

parm
10-08-2008, 07:55 PM
I'm willing to bet, based upon logic, that you would never ever assume that happened by chance. Not just because of the complexity of the arrangement, but because the arrangement means something. This is where I'm going with the DNA genetic code. The arrangement of the letter H before the I (in the english language), only means something because a mind(s) has applied meaning to it. There is not intrinsic/inherit value in something that is shaped in what we call the letter H or in a shape that we call a letter I. They are a language/code and no, none, Ø language/code can arrive with out a mind. SOooooo, if we see that there is a language/code written on a molecule, it is only logical (based upon what we do know about languages and codes) that a mind wrote that. Evolution, or random chance chemistry will never ever produce a language

So, correct me if I'm wrong. You think that DNA is actual code, analogous with language or a computer program. And your argument is, that since codes mean something, like the word 'Hi' does in English. It therefore must have been written by God.

You don't think that DNA is a molecule, with code like attributes.

In other words you don't believe that the relationship of DNA to code, is metaphorical. That code, is merely used as a way of best describing a completely natural mechanism, according our current understanding of its nature.

The annual rings of a tree could also be described as code. They contain information about climactic conditions, rate of growth of the tree, its age, even its species. You surely wouldn't say that was code, in the same way language or a computer program is.

We can find examples of accidental codes everywhere. That are shaped entirely by environmental factors and require no specific author. But never the less, beautifully convey vast amounts of information relating to the history and disposition of things. Forensics, geology, Archeology and many other fields depend on it.

prometheus
10-09-2008, 06:51 AM
Geez ..this thread was growing fast..it´s like Evolution or a virus..
Ive missed some interesting threads about god and evolution.

Why is god almost always refered to He?.maybe to justify the richteous male mankind as top of the order in the life chain here at earth, so whatever we decide to do, it´s justified under god and one nation.(how scary)

and an icon was introduced as Jesus to make god more merciful and to manifest the relation between god and man..how convinient.
and always there´s that wonderful image of jesus as
blonde,blueyed white male.
how about black and female..hope Im not blasphemy here.

well things have certainly become more interesting when leaving that traditionally view of how he looks and if god exist?

and when discussions are brought up on how to merge science and god and when god is´nt shaped in any human form or mind.
a master intelligence(how we do we define it?)..where did that come from?
has it alway been there in some kind of entity or is it built in the universal laws of physics in the smallest entitys so what ever can and will be created, will be just that.


Well Im more of Agnostic ..but that will probably change the last hours or minutes before Im leaving this earth..otherwise life could be unbearable I guess:)

I do believe in one of those presidential candidates thou.
one of them speaks intelligently,looks presidentially, is reluctant to attack either in words or with weapons.
The other is the opposite.

Michael

starbase1
10-09-2008, 06:58 AM
There are Republicans that are Christian and (relatively) good people.
There are atheists that are really, bad people.

But I think the way it is, is that people WANT to be good. The problem is it feels so good to be bad! ;)

I simply do not beleive that you can accept the kind of stuff that the republicans have done, as listed before, and still be Christians. They are completely incompatible.

Oh, and while the various monster popes and the like use their religion to justify their evil, I am not aware of any athiest who has been accused of that.

IMI
10-09-2008, 08:13 AM
Oh, and while the various monster popes and the like use their religion to justify their evil, I am not aware of any athiest who has been accused of that.

You wouldn't say Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao... none of those used their "religion" to justify their evil?

Yeah I know it's not exactly the same thing, but it would be hard to find an atheist using his religion, since by definition an atheist has no religion.
So we have to look to the famous atheists who used their political views in place of any sort of religion.
Although I'm not entirely sure Hitler was an atheist, but the rest on that list could suffice.

hrgiger
10-09-2008, 08:19 AM
You wouldn't say Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao... none of those used their "religion" to justify their evil?

Yeah I know it's not exactly the same thing, but it would be hard to find an atheist using his religion, since by definition an atheist has no religion.
So we have to look to the famous atheists who used their political views in place of any sort of religion.
Although I'm not entirely sure Hitler was an atheist, but the rest on that list could suffice.

Yes, but those people you mentioned weren't persecuting others based on their religious beliefs either. You don't see atheists out there persecuting catholics on a grand scale because they are catholics I think is what Starbase was saying.

Limbus
10-09-2008, 08:23 AM
You wouldn't say Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao... none of those used their "religion" to justify their evil?


Hitler was by no means an atheist.
And Lenin, Stalin and Mao did very bad things. But they did not do them because of their belive or non-belive.

Lightwolf
10-09-2008, 08:23 AM
Yeah I know it's not exactly the same thing, but it would be hard to find an atheist using his religion, since by definition an atheist has no religion.
Not quite. An atheist doesn't believe in one (monotheist) or more multiple (polytheistic) deities.
However, there are religions that work quite well without that concept (Buddhism being the prime example). Yes, atheist religion indeed.

So we have to look to the famous atheists who used their political views in place of any sort of religion.
Although I'm not entirely sure Hitler was an atheist, but the rest on that list could suffice.
He wasn't. As for the others it's not really known. Anti-religion: yes (which makes sense as religions is an instrument of power), atheists though???

Cheers,
Mike

Limbus
10-09-2008, 08:29 AM
I can't completely discount the possibility some kind of a supreme being. Who knows for sure?
It is an easy answer to a lot of (currently) impossible questions.


An easy answer? A beeing that would be able to create everything we see must be extremely complex. Not easy. And who created the creator then?

hrgiger
10-09-2008, 08:32 AM
I still can't find spiritual rest until I find out which of the many religions is the one true one :(

What if I subscribed to the wrong one? That would be a massive personal downer in the afterlife.

I can tell you with 100% certainty that everyone is right and everyone is wrong. Because when it comes down to it, religion and atheism are beliefs and that's all.
Personally, I think that anyone who sees life as much more then pure entertainment, are missing the point.

IMI
10-09-2008, 08:38 AM
Yes, but those people you mentioned weren't persecuting others based on their religious beliefs either. You don't see atheists out there persecuting catholics on a grand scale because they are catholics I think is what Starbase was saying.

I probably shouldn't have jumped in without knowing what y'all were talking about. ;)
Carry on.

Iain
10-09-2008, 08:43 AM
And who created the creator then?

That old chestnut? :D No more esoteric than the idea of a Big Bang coming from nothing.
I didn't say it wouldn't throw up it's own impossible questions and I'm not saying I believe it-I just can't rule out the possibility of there being something.

There are so many unknowns, you can't say anything for certain.

CMT
10-09-2008, 08:49 AM
I still can't find spiritual rest until I find out which of the many religions is the one true one :(

What if I subscribed to the wrong one? That would be a massive personal downer in the afterlife.

You know, believe whatever you think is right. All we can do is offer the views. No one can make you pick their religion over others. It's YOUR decision. It's one of America's freedoms for you to choose for yourself. It's not something that you "subscribe to" either. If you've experienced true spirituality in religion, you'll just know it.

Besides, we all know you're not sincere about this anyway. Your request for an answer is only mocking and condescending those of us who are religious and not adding anything to the conversation.

Edit: Forgot, you're from Denmark. But surely you have similar freedoms there?

Iain
10-09-2008, 08:49 AM
Because when it comes down to it, religion and atheism are beliefs and that's all.


Exactly.
You can back up your opinion with the best researched and thought out arguments but you can't say you know.

CMT
10-09-2008, 08:52 AM
You don't see atheists out there persecuting catholics on a grand scale because they are catholics I think is what Starbase was saying.

No, just on internet forums.... :)

Lightwolf
10-09-2008, 08:53 AM
Your request for an answer is only mocking and condescending those of us who are religious and not adding anything to the conversation.
It may have been phrased that way, granted. But that's the question you need to ask as long as conflicts are carried out over that question.

Cheers,
Mike

hrgiger
10-09-2008, 08:57 AM
No, just on internet forums.... :)

True that. But name calling and telling someone else they're dumb for feeling the way they do is just a teensy bit different then genocide. And while I probably share Neverkos and Stooches overall view of religion, I choose not to engage in such trivial exchanges becuase they go nowhere even faster then our political discussions. As long as people keep me out of their relgious beliefs, I'm cool. BTW, anyone notice Stooch got banned? I'm sure it was for some of his warm comments on the relgious.

CMT
10-09-2008, 09:00 AM
It may have been phrased that way, granted. But that's the question you need to ask as long as conflicts are carried out over that question.

Cheers,
Mike

Well, when I know for a fact that someone is sincere in wanting to know more about the religion I believe in, I will be more than happy to share whatever knowledge I can. But to answer the question of "Why is yours the right one?", the only honest answer I can give is "Because it just feels right to me." I can go through a whole debate as we have in trying to explain why, but again, in the end it's up to them to decide.

Lightwolf
10-09-2008, 09:06 AM
But to answer the question of "Why is yours the right one?", the only honest answer I can give is "Because it just feels right to me."
Which is absolutely fine! You're also probably not the type to start a war over it either ;)

Cheers,
Mike

CMT
10-09-2008, 09:13 AM
Which is absolutely fine! You're also probably not the type to start a war over it either ;)

Cheers,
Mike

Not even a verbal one! :)

CMT
10-09-2008, 09:25 AM
True that. But name calling and telling someone else they're dumb for feeling the way they do is just a teensy bit different then genocide. And while I probably share Neverkos and Stooches overall view of religion, I choose not to engage in such trivial exchanges becuase they go nowhere even faster then our political discussions. As long as people keep me out of their relgious beliefs, I'm cool. BTW, anyone notice Stooch got banned? I'm sure it was for some of his warm comments on the relgious.

Heh, yeah. When people use religion as an excuse to massacre others, it's sickening. What's so spiritual about killing others?

I don't go to church every week, and there's a reason for that. I go when I feel like it. Not out of a feeling of obligation, but mainly to listen to the sermon (usually it's very enlightening). And when I do go, I usually look around the church during Mass and watch others and their faces. I'd say about 95% of them have a blank stare, or are looking at their watches, or just somehow show that they aren't really into it. They go for show.

How many other religions are like that as well? How many people who go to the mosques or temples, etc. are truely into what they practice? It really makes me think that those who use religion as an excuse for mass murder, are using it as just that. An excuse. The true motives being economical, financial, or just plain greed.

------

I saw Stooch got banned, I just wonder what he said...

IMI
10-09-2008, 09:28 AM
------

I saw Stooch got banned, I just wonder what he said...

In this thread?
Huh. And he's been doing so well lately. I guess he had a relapse. ;)

Iain
10-09-2008, 09:33 AM
I saw Stooch got banned, I just wonder what he said...

I could be wrong, but I think he reworked the 'leaf formation deity proof' into his own faecal version.

Shame we didn't get to see it-it might just work. I'm doing some sketches and rudimentary equations just now.

Lightwolf
10-09-2008, 09:42 AM
... I'd say about 95% of them have a blank stare, or are looking at their watches, or just somehow show that they aren't really into it. They go for show.

How many other religions are like that as well? How many people who go to the mosques or temples, etc. are truely into what they practice? It really makes me think that those who use religion as an excuse for mass murder, are using it as just that. An excuse. The true motives being economical, financial, or just plain greed.

It seems that Marx was right to a certain degree then:

Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.
(as a note, I don't completely agree with the resolution).

Cheers,
Mike

starbase1
10-09-2008, 10:21 AM
You wouldn't say Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao... none of those used their "religion" to justify their evil?

Yeah I know it's not exactly the same thing, but it would be hard to find an atheist using his religion, since by definition an atheist has no religion.
So we have to look to the famous atheists who used their political views in place of any sort of religion.
Although I'm not entirely sure Hitler was an atheist, but the rest on that list could suffice.

The difference is that a pope is accepted BY CHRISTIANS as being a representative of Christianity, whereas Stalin is not accepted by athests as being a representative of athiests.

So when a pope commits extreme evil, (and try any of them from the 13th century), christians (and more specifically catholics) have some explaining to do, particularly if they are going to maintain that the line of papal succession procedes in a divine manner through monsters like Rodrigo Borgia, and still accept some of his pronouncements as divinely true.

Likewise in a less extreme manner, if people are going to vote for the likes of Bush because they consider him a good representative of their christianity, they have chosen him to represent them, and their religious beleifs. And I consider it valid to take a person chosen by others of the same faith to represent their views as, er, representative of them.

IMI
10-09-2008, 10:24 AM
The difference is that a pope is accepted BY CHRISTIANS as being a representative of Christianity, whereas Stalin is not accepted by athests as being a representative of athiests.

So when a pope commits extreme evil, (and try any of them from the 13th century), christians (and more specifically catholics) have some explaining to do, particularly if they are going to maintain that the line of papal succession procedes in a divine manner through monsters like Rodrigo Borgia, and still accept some of his pronouncements as divinely true.




Oh, OK.
Well, I'm not going to argue with you. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone more opposed to the Catholic Church than I am. ;)

Mitja
10-09-2008, 10:26 AM
Here we go again, religion thread! :)

Limbus
10-09-2008, 10:27 AM
So when a pope commits extreme evil, (and try any of them from the 13th century),


Why go back that far. You can take todays popes as examples.

CMT
10-09-2008, 10:41 AM
Why go back that far. You can take todays popes as examples.

Like what?

Limbus
10-09-2008, 10:50 AM
Like what?

Like banning contraception which is directly responsible for many thousand AIDS victims in Africa.

CMT
10-09-2008, 10:50 AM
It seems that Marx was right to a certain degree then:

(as a note, I don't completely agree with the resolution).

Cheers,
Mike

Hehe, I'm not in total agreement with his statements either. I can see though that there are situations where he could be right about oppression and religion. But with my experience, no one in our congregation is oppressed, in fact our side of town is living quite well as is most of our congregation.

But, I see these people who are looking at their watch and aren't into it as they are there just for status, or to please their spouse, or other various reasons. You can quickly identify the ones who are genuinely into the service. It's not oppression that drives these people to the services, it's them trying to fit in with their current social system just as an adolescent easily falls to peer pressure.

I can see some followers being coaxed to religion from fear of the unknown and death, etc... But I'm not one of them and I can't imagine I'm not alone. And it's not from the idea that I might have a life after death. In fact, there's occasions when I'm not sure I like the thought of living for eternity. What's there to do? :)

I mentioned to someone else that I hope when I die, God has my house waiting for me in his Holy city and the latest Xbox console already installed. Though, I doubt he'll let me have a copy of GTA 1001. :D

CMT
10-09-2008, 10:51 AM
Like banning contraception which is directly responsible for many thousand AIDS victims in Africa.

Ohhhh... That's just such an evil act. :rolleyes:

Not that I agree with it, though....

But to clarify, the Vatican is rethinking it's position, due to the situation.

IMI
10-09-2008, 11:00 AM
Like banning contraception which is directly responsible for many thousand AIDS victims in Africa.

Seems like what you should be more upset about is that the people listen to what the Pope says. Last I heard, he wasn't supreme dictator of Africa.


So, because the pope says no contraception, ergo, he is responsible for AIDS. Nice logic. Well, it's not surprising, as it's socialist logic, rather, the *bad* kind of socialist logic - the kind that says people shouldn't have to be responsible for their own actions and seeks to blame everything but the individual, where there are problems.

Limbus
10-09-2008, 11:03 AM
Seems like what you should be more upset about is that the people listen to what the Pope says. Last I heard, he wasn't supreme dictator of Africa.

I should be upset because catholics listen to what the pope says and follow it? Stange logic I must say. The pope has a huge power in the catholic world and with that power comes responsibility. Now the pope tells his followers to not use condoms because they are bad. This makes him directly responsible.

hrgiger
10-09-2008, 11:08 AM
So, because the pope says no contraception, ergo, he is responsible for AIDS. Nice logic. Well, it's not surprising, as it's socialist logic, rather, the *bad* kind of socialist logic - the kind that says people shouldn't have to be responsible for their own actions and seeks to blame everything but the individual, where there are problems.

Well, we're gettinig to one of religions fundamental flaws in that people pick and choose which parts of a religion they're going to apply to their own lives.
But nobody should be saying that the Pope is directly responsible for AIDS due to his stance on birth control. I think they should just say he's kind of an idiot because of it when you take an issue like Africa into consideration and the rampant infection rates of HIV.

Limbus
10-09-2008, 11:11 AM
But nobody should be saying that the Pope is directly responsible for AIDS due to his stance on birth control.

Sure he is. He is telling his followers not to use condoms. This directly leads to AIDS in many catholic parts of africa.

Lightwolf
10-09-2008, 11:13 AM
But with my experience, no one in our congregation is oppressed, in fact our side of town is living quite well as is most of our congregation.
How do you understand oppression though? It can be a lot more than just affecting your financial situation.

The only point I really disagree with is the abolition of religion. However, if a person comes to that conclusion on his own, no problem.

Cheers,
Mike

hrgiger
10-09-2008, 11:17 AM
Sure he is. He is telling his followers not to use condoms. This directly leads to AIDS in many catholic parts of africa.

Directly is a strong word. You could make the case that some of the people are uneducated about the dangers of HIV and in that case, I'd be inclined to agree with you. However, for anyone that understands that HIV is transmitted sexually, they're just as much of an idiot as the Pope if they listen to him in this regard. At that point, I would downgrade the popes direct responsibility to flagrant irresponsibility and ignorance.

Limbus
10-09-2008, 11:27 AM
Directly is a strong word. You could make the case that some of the people are uneducated about the dangers of HIV and in that case, I'd be inclined to agree with you. However, for anyone that understands that HIV is transmitted sexually, they're just as much of an idiot as the Pope if they listen to him in this regard. At that point, I would downgrade the popes direct responsibility to flagrant irresponsibility and ignorance.I think you have to see this from the catholic standpoint. The pope is not just some dude telling them some rule. He is gods represantative on earth. He is unfailable. Even if they know bout the risk and that they should use a condom, they cant easily put the condom ban aside.

hrgiger
10-09-2008, 11:32 AM
I understand the popes position in the church. But according to most religious, god gave us free will so you can't absolve people of all responsibility just because the pope told them to do something. Would it be unreasonable if the Pope told them to jump off a cliff if the people actually did it? I think it would be, and if people understood the dangers of HIVS and chose not to wore a condom just because the pope said not to, well, they have only themselves to blame because it's certainly not the pope that's going to have to take care of them.

CMT
10-09-2008, 11:33 AM
The pope has a huge power in the catholic world and with that power comes responsibility.

Cool! Like Spiderman! :D


Now the pope tells his followers to not use condoms because they are bad. This makes him directly responsible.

Ridiculous. This is just contraceptives we're talking about.

There's a huge problem here in the US with Aids and with underage pregnancy. Is that the Pope's fault too? Since the only possible reason is that
the Pope said you can't use contraceptives? Gimme a break.

If people don't want to use contraceptives, they won't. No matter who tells them. Having sex when "we're not supposed to" is the biggest sin on the planet. (And by biggest, I mean the most frequent occurring sin) The problem with Aids in Africa isn't the Pope. It's lack of Aids awareness.

CMT
10-09-2008, 11:34 AM
they cant easily put the condom ban aside.

I did.... so I'm a sinner.... sue me...

IMI
10-09-2008, 11:41 AM
I understand the popes position in the church. But according to most religious, god gave us free will so you can't absolve people of all responsibility just because the pope told them to do something. Would it be unreasonable if the Pope told them to jump off a cliff if the people actually did it? I think it would be, and if people understood the dangers of HIVS and chose not to wore a condom just because the pope said not to, well, they have only themselves to blame because it's certainly not the pope that's going to have to take care of them.

And I too understand the Pope's position in The Church. All too well, actually, but that's a whole 'nother story.

And I agree with HR here. Using his example, how many people do you think would jump off a cliff if the Pope said so? Maybe some would, but the vast majority wouldn't. Because they know it's just wrong.
Just as they know unprotected sex can let AIDS in, but they're willing to take that chance.
The Pope doesn't see it as an abuse of power, or him being irresponsible for upholding that "law", he's just going with Church tradition and doctrine.
Anyone who gets AIDS because the Pope said don't use a condom in a high AIDS area is pretty much asking for it anyway.

Doesn't the Pope also tell them to abstain from sex out of wedlock and not to commit adultery? Why do they ignore that one?
They don't *want* to use a condom (who can blame them for that? ), and that's a MUCH easier rule to follow....

hrgiger
10-09-2008, 11:43 AM
Doesn't the Pope also tell them to abstain from sex out of wedlock and not to commit adultery? Why do they ignore that one?
They don't *want* to use a condom (who can blame them for that? ), and that's a MUCH easier rule to follow....

Good points there I hadn't thought of. There's a lot of rape there as well, perhaps he should spend more time preaching to people about not raping then telling them to not wear condoms.

starbase1
10-09-2008, 11:45 AM
Not even a verbal one! :)

That's Cool!
You'd make a good Pastafarian!
:devil: