4,201

(39 replies, posted in Politics)

Religions are socially defined systems of belief. While disagreement exists on particulars within religions by those who do believe and follow all of the pillars of those religions, it is important to draw a line at some point.

"Catholics" who never go to church or take part in the community are not Catholics, for instance. Community is an integral part of the Catholic faith; to ignore this is to deny one of the major beliefs of the Catholic church. Catholics do not deny major beliefs of the Catholic church.

There is legitimate disagreement and discussion over the use of birth control in relationships where the goal is healthy, but waiting would be wiser. Those who disagree with the current positions of the Church do not disagree with the fundamentals on which the current position is built. They simply disagree on the implementation of these fundamentals to mean what, specifically, in living healthy, moral lives.

Those are my examples. Lots of people still identify themselves with groups which they have fundamental disagreements with and do not belong to [anymore].

4,202

(287 replies, posted in Politics)

hahahaha big_smile

4,203

(54 replies, posted in Politics)

Snus? Is that like chew? 'Cause chew gives maaaaad gum cancer and tooth decay.  [reads article] Bastards need to get those carginogens lower! Like 2% of chew carcinogens is too much. Get a big tumor in your mouth... not secksi.

Pot does not cause cancer, and pot smokers tend to smoke a lot less than cig smokers smoke cigs, so the tar damage to the lungs is generally far less with pot than cigs.  Cancer's the big scare anyway!

4,204

(287 replies, posted in Politics)

Catholicism: 1  Creationism: 0

4,205

(7 replies, posted in Politics)

"The God of Abaham can be loved, or feared, as a father, sometimes his forgiveness, sometimes his anger being the dominant aspect. Inasmuch as God is the father, I am the child. I have not emerged fully from the autistic wish for omniscience and omnipotence. I have not yet acquired the objectivity to realize my limitations as a human being, my ignorance, my helplessness. I still claim, like a child, that there must be a father who rescues me, who watches me, who punishes me, a father who likes me when I am obedient, who is flattered by my praise and angry because of my disobedience. Quite obviously, the majority of people have, in their personal development, not overcome this infantile stage, and hence the belief in God to most people is the belief in a helping father--a childish illusion. In spite of the fact tha this concept of religion has been overcome by some of the great teachers of the human race, and by a minority of men, it is still the dominant form of religion.

"Inasmuch as this is so, the criticism of the idea of God, as it was expressed by Freud, is quite correct. The error, however, was in the fact that he ignored the other aspect of monotheistic religion, and its true kernel, the logic of which leads exactly to the negation of this concept of God. The truely religious person, if he follows the essence of the monotheistic idea, does not pray for anything, does not expect anything from God; he does not love God as a child loves his father or his mother; he has acquired the humility of sensing his limitations, to the degree of knowing that he knows nothing about God. God becomes to him a symbol in which man, at an earlier stage of his evolution, has expressed the totality of that which man is striving for, the realm of the spiritual world, of love, truth and justice. He has faith in the principles which "God" represents; he thinks truth, lives love and justice, and considers all of his life only valuable inasmuch as it gives him the chance to arrive at an ever fuller unfolding of his human powers--as the only reality that matters, as the only object of "ultimate concern"; and, eventually, he does not speak about God--nor even mention his name. To love God, if he were going to use this word, would mean, then, to long for the attainment of the full capacity to love, for the realization of that which "God" stands for in oneself."

--Erich Fromm

I was raised in a devout Catholic family, but, try as I might, the Holy Spirit never came down from the heavens and confirmed faith in this conception of God to me. I stumbled across this passage while reading a book by Fromm a few days ago, and I think it's the best explanation of what I'm left with concerning the idea of "God."

I think all of you who actually believe all the fairy tales of religious dogma are nuts. So I figured I'd post this, because I think it's a good passage that gets at my conception of "God," and give you a chance to explain yourselves. Agree or disagree as you will.... tongue

4,206

(54 replies, posted in Politics)

I think things have developed here nicely. The idea isn't focused around one side of abortion or gay marriage or a gimped national defense.

The focus is on government involvement in areas like helmet laws (<==big biker/biker enthusiast) or monstrous FDA laws that cost hundreds of thousands of lives each year and limit things like the smoking of pot. A plant that naturally grows all over and has been (and still is) smoked by peoples the world over. It's less harmful than tobacco or alcohol yet it's illegal. Why? The type of bullshit government that libertarians are against. Pot's illegalization is an example of laws based on corporate profits--the type of thing that's unjust and harmful to the American people. Government should know its place, and stay out of many areas where it currently uses tons of tax dollars to regulate. And their regulations cost billions more dollars and lives every year. When laws cost us freedom, justice, money, and lives, those laws REALLY should have been revaluated long ago.

4,207

(54 replies, posted in Politics)

Esa about covered it!

4,208

(15 replies, posted in Politics)

>>Not really, it's just that FOX is pretty much the only self assumed right wing mainstream media network, as opposed to CNN, NBC and sometimes even ABC.<<

Fox is something like 39% republican, 33% democrat (and whatever's leftover independent) last I checked. The rest are all around 18% republican, 45% democrat. Fox has more viewers too.

You can make up whatever you want. The fact is, they have the most balanced viewers by far.

>>This and "Obama is a racist", "obama is a terrorist/ muslim " etc.. etc..<<
>>These kinda crap allegations only serve to reduce Republican credibility even more, if thats possible.<<

That's not what they're saying. People like you give your party a bad name. You're terribly misinformed yet you make arrogant statements as if you actually listened and wanted to respond to the truth.

I think McCain and Palin are both morons too, but that doesn't make Obama a saint. Educate yourself, foo!

4,209

(54 replies, posted in Politics)

To a reasonable extent.

4,210

(15 replies, posted in Politics)

? Fox has, by far, the most evenly balanced group of viewers of ANY news network. And they have more viewers.

They must be doing something better than the leftist "news" media.

4,211

(287 replies, posted in Politics)

If you specify the facts they can't say WELL YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN ALL OF EXISTENCE CLEARLY and point to God as why they're clearly brighter. Because they thought up this awesome answer to everything all by themselves.

4,212

(15 replies, posted in Politics)

Damn vast right wing conspiracy. First the untarnishable Clintons now the morally righteous Obama! When will they stop!?

4,213

(287 replies, posted in Politics)

I think this ridiculous talk about religion addressing why and science addressing how is the funniest thing on this board in days.

4,214

(287 replies, posted in Politics)

"to say that spacetime did not exist before the big bang is an assumption, an illogical one at that, and a matter of convenience."

You're right. If you discount the uncontested current findings of science. Sure, you can do it without any actual evidence or mathematical support. But then you're probably as nuts as those who claim the earth was created in 6 days. And God created fossils just to [The fmods owned me before I even knew it!] with mankind. 'Cause your god is into that sort of thing.

"you cannot have something out of nothing, movement out of inertia. sorry, can't happen."

Bear in mind that this finding would be true of your God as with science. You have the same problem of lacking a definitive, evidence-backed explanation. Only science can suggest ways most likely for this to have happened without violating physics (projecting back until some point where evidence would be hard to find, seeing as everything was all mashed up). And the opposing position involves God and all kinds of craziness which has no scientific evidence supporting it.

4,215

(103 replies, posted in Politics)

Remember to call it a "tax break," not a "tax cut" or anything suggesting it's a tax refund for recipients of Obama's proposed hand-outs under his tax plan. He wants to redistribute wealth across the board, regardless of whether or not you pay any taxes. He'll just mail you a check in return for your vote.

4,216

(103 replies, posted in Politics)

I think the really disgusting part of this all is how open everyone is about shutting off their brains. There are a lot of people who are aware that this guy has no experience, allied himself with radical Amerika haters for decades, and has the worst news the economy could hear. And they don't care. They're black so it's time a black guy held the office. Or they're sophisticated so clearly, if they elect a black guy, they're not ignorant pricks anymore. Or they're socialists, and they'll have to change their pants constantly if he's elected because it'll be a constant wet dream for them.

It's a long-time myth in many media sources that the democratic party is the party of the poor, poverty-stricken, working man who Amerika isn't good enough to. So while the majority of working middle class Amerikans still vote republican, you've got well-to-do upper middle class whities who feel moral superiority for belonging to the clearly ethically superior party of the working man (who the working man isn't voting for)(because hey, they're not going to miss the extra cash. they have lots more) and poor welfare abusers who are ALWAYS going to vote for the guy offering bigger handouts.

Somewhere in the mix the honest discussion of the actual policy and ideal differences was lost a LONG time ago. Corrupt politicians with [S--T] for brains are supported by the general public which, in large part, has similarly corrupt (selfish) motivations coupled with absolute ignorance of whatever the position they've judged best for their selfish desires (be it ego, or handouts, or who-knows what) doesn't tell them to think. This willful ignorance and outright stupidity is disturbing because, in this society, it doesn't stop arrogance and self-righteousness. You can be a complete moron voting based on handouts or an ego trip, openly NOT concerned with the substance of the political options before you, and STILL be loudly arrogant and self-righteous. You can do it on TV. You are encouraged to do it in your local political processes. Because everyone else has shut off their brains too. Blind following the blind.

His preference with education is to spend money to radicalize children to demand socialism from their government, not spend money to improve education and the failing systems that haven't been providing it in many areas. But that's okay. Just move on. It's not like an educated population in a capitalist nation has ever prosperred. What ignorant thinking that would be! Better socialize them now than invest in their success in a free market.

His preference with the economy is to rape it. Obviously the do-good-for-the-poor man democrats have a great solution to the tax burden on citizens of this great nation: Tax the wealthy a lot more to make up for a lowered burden on the poor man. They have money to spare, so why not? It never actually happens this way, and never includes with Barack Hussein Obama. First, the burden on the poor man is never actually lifted. Give people like this more money to work with? Yeah, look at their records. Their first thought is always to give it back to you and me. Then there's the real reason this position on taxation is ridiculously ignorant (and thus, perpetually proposing it as a more just change [hey! we'll tax the hell out of them! you'll get revenge! Vengeance 2008; a reasonable ticket not aiming to short-circuit your rational decision making!]). It doesn't work. The rich who are supposedly going to be taxed more have a great investment in their money; it's theirs. And they'll invest in ways that won't suffer from the tax increases and safely break all kinds of laws (lawyers ftw) to avoid these higher taxes. Barack Hussein Obama wasn't a HUGE recipient (often #1 or #2!) of huge financial corporations' campaign contributions because he promised to tax them more heavily. They know it doesn't actually happen like that.

His position of being black is racist. His father was black (I'm thinking aaaaaaaaaarab! his name isn't a traditional african name. I think I recognize it from another culture, though...). His mother was white. That makes his genetic material half of black ancestry and half of white ancestry. To call him black or for him to call himself black is racist. It presumes and ACCEPTS ignorant prejudices that having any black ancestors labels you as black ABOVE the various other labels which are tied to your ancestral heritage. The fact that many in Amerika (I'm looking at you, ignorant dill-weeds) accept this view--that if you're any amount black, you black! cause they're nearly all muts anyway!--does mean that, culturally, socially, he'll be treated as 'black' with all of the horrible racism that Amerika is so proud of in this day and age. With some variance in the 'black' community itself. It's no secret if you're more light or darked skin. And some notice with more than just their eyes. He's VERY educated. If he wanted to move beyond race and really wanted to move beyond racism (which is ethically reprehensible. to the highest degree. beyond any discussion. it's wrong. very wrong. period.), I have to question is his chosen course of action in his career and the thinkers he associates with most closely (his 'mentors', no less).

4,217

(103 replies, posted in Politics)

Yeah, I thought that was a hillarious statement. Only a 5 year old could call someone else a 5 year old for being more educated than them. tongue

4,218

(58 replies, posted in Politics)

Screw this! Who remembers the Hot Dog Bun / V.Kemp ticket?

We stated our positions at length. We were and still are clearly the best ticket in IC and in the USA and in the WORLD!

4,219

(3 replies, posted in Politics)

Don't vote. You only encourage the bastards.

I'm not suggesting that not encouraging them is going to do any good. The simple fact is that there are too many morons in the world. You're doomed. We're all doomed!

4,220

(287 replies, posted in Politics)

I repeat myself:
"If it didn't have that drive in some form or other it would not survive well as what did. It is an evolutionary advantage, so evolution theory explains it easily."
It's both how and the why. The why being it is always selected among different traits that inhibit this strong need to pass genetic material.

Do I need to mail your community science textbooks? We'll start up a collection. tongue

I acknowledge the logic of the concept that maybe there's more to explain what is. But that, of course, wouldn't explain how what caused what is was caused. Or maybe what is just always was. At some point you have to accept the eternal. Remember, even time itself is linked to matter and space. Universe expanding and collapsing in on itself for eternity. At some point we reach a limit of human knowledge. I like Camus's philosophy of the absurd;  man's futile search for meaning, unity and clarity in the face of an unintelligible world devoid of God and eternity. I leave it at that.

4,221

(27 replies, posted in Politics)

I was just poking fun. tongue

4,222

(103 replies, posted in Politics)

Blasphemy! Racist! lol big_smile

4,223

(144 replies, posted in Politics)

I'll try to be ONLY specific content orientied--without the asshole quality I usually use in high doses.

I still say you've been terrible in your responses. tongue You've got to qualify your statements. When people question them, the least you can do is explain why you believe/stated what you stated. That gives us more understanding of your posted statements and something to work with. Maybe only having a biochemistry education and engaging and bringing in so many other fields of study has you ill-prepared. tongue In any case, this is why, if I ever engage you in here in the future (god knows I'm staying out of this quack thread, lol), I'll keep it specific only content questions (to start, that is). You'll have no excuses. tongue

I'm sure your field will bring you much reward. I doubt there will be a better time to be in your field than our lifetimes. (just in case I don't use them enough, tongue tongue tongue tongue tongue)

4,224

(144 replies, posted in Politics)

I've studied Communicatoin, Catholic Studies, Integrated Marketing, Philosophy, and Theology at two ranked universities in the United States. My opening statement about basing statements on facts was because man, I looooooved my grad courses! Please note sarcasm.

Who cares what I seem like to you? Refer to 2 posts ago. You're here to stroke your own ego. Your bullshit doesn't concern me. I just wanted to give you some of the education information you asked for because I would hate for you to think I might only have a 9th grade education like yourself. tongue

4,225

(144 replies, posted in Politics)

You're a moron. You'll learn to live with it. No amount of crying can make it my problem. tongue

I think your thread title is funny because most functional people would have to be on the edge of pass-out drunk to write it.