I post for discussion. Exchange of ideas and responses to those ideas. Even when I'm overly an asshole (which I often am, because most of the time on these boards it's some ignorant, cocky, arrogant kid posting who doesn't know or care about the truth), it's usually because something's really disgusting and I have no intention of actually continuing an exchange with someone who will never actually respond to the CONTENT of my post. And I always respond very specifically and explain myself at whatever length it takes to explain how I arrived at whatever conclusions I make clear. Inviltrist is one of these people who gets a harsh response and then I don't bother to keep responding. Because he never touches the content. Often someone responds to the content and I'll even apologize for my coarse initial post(s), if appropriate, as we break things down and see exactly where we disagree. We have a perfectly respectable discussion of things we disagree on. Some of them are even humorous.

But inviltrist isn't funny. He won't touch the content here with a 10 foot pole. Because  I was specific. And that's the last thing he'll be.

To have a dialogical communication, you have to be willing to let those you are communicating with take the discussion to ever increasing levels of abstractness or concreteness. That's why I like to start with the specifics of what people post. It's easy. It's hands-on. I keep the quotations short and respond concisely. If a person wants to actually discuss their statements, this lets us break down specifically where we disagree on the evidence and logic that leads to their conclusions. Then if there's more to talk about more theoretically we know on what we're basing this more abstract discussion. We actually understand fully where we each stand and disagree.

So, in keeping with my overly harsh posts to arrogant, ignorant children, I will say that everything here only gives me the impression Inviltrist is a child or an adult severely underdeveloped. In addition to my asshole comments here I ALWAYS post content. My asshole comments are always DIRECTLY drawn from the content. If someone wants to respond to the content, I'll gain respect for them and discuss. If someone responds like Inviltrist does and ignores the comment to cry that I was too mean to them, that's EXACTLY the kind of kid on here that I post asshole comments for and then stop posting about whatever it is they're crying about.

Defeat? Sorry, I'm not interested in listening to a little kid whine.

The question is, presuming all of existence as we know it doesn't just happen to be here magically, what more is there to explain everything that's here that's clearly beyond our knowledge. I wouldn't presume to call it a higher being or a force. Now read the rant about how labelling it these limiting terms is narrow-minded and ignorant again. If your concern is the truth, you're not doing yourself a favor by calling things descriptive names before you have any indication that they can be described by such.

You mentioned Descartes' (among others') proof of god. I was referring to the one you referred to.

I didn't mean any offense, Elysian Thebes. I apologize if I was an asshole. You see, I get used to retards who won't respond to subject matter but cry about never responding to subject matter. You hit the subject matter AND milked the cows. Hillarious.

>>and your claim that people that beleive in God are psychotic is just as arrogant...<<

You're the one living your life based on the belief that there are invisible pink uncorns in the sky that will punish you unless you do what they magically told crazy people to write down to guide humanity's actions thousands of years ago. Don't do anything like tell me specifically what about my explanation of why I don't alter my life based upon myths with NO evidence to support their claims you find fault with. That would be too intellegent and we could both learn where we disagree and why. Then we might actually respect one another and have a discussion. Just post saying "you're arrogant for saying you see this behavior as crazy! asshole!" and leave it at that. Very enlightening. You're a great communicator!

>>first cause is the original definition of the gods<<

Only so far as the gods are necessarily human-like creatures with mega powers and human traits. I have a hard time accepting that. That's a big redefinition of what we actually know (or rather, don't know).

"For all we know, this prime mover is a mad scientist from another realm with laws we can't even conceive of, who created our universe as a 5th grade science project and he doesn't even care about us anymore."

Justinian I has demonstrated this point much more humorously than I could have hoped to.

Anyone referring to a prime mover as "he" is already accepting some of those traits we're saying there's no reason to presume.

And inviltrist wraps things up nicely so I don't have to question your recognition of "order and harmony". Because I don't recognize them. Sure we survive in the current temperature range. But looking to evolutionary theory as the most likely useful theory in explaining life in its current states, this is a result OF the temperature range--not an indication that the temperature range was decided FOR our survival.

>>Or he could be trying to have as much of a private life as possible? <<

He won't name a single person he had any contact with. He won't share anything about his studies that he's capable of sealing the records to. Anyone who thinks his behavior is his protecting his personal life is in denial.

>>accusing obama of having ties to a "domestic terrorrist" because they served among other people together on the board of a commitee for better education for children or something along those lines<<

Maybe before you post you should consider actually learning the news, 'eh? You have no idea what his connection is with Ayers and yet you post anyway. Thanks for nothing. NEXT!

If I lived in Alaska I'd probably want to leave the Union too. For the most part you're a bunch of dishonest, morally reprehensible, intellectually retarded wankers.

>>The people around you don' tmake you who you are.<<

But the people who trust you and you trust to distribute 60 million dollars for each other are usually people you agree with concerning the spending of that money (on the radicalization of youth. because they don't need a real education that will better their lives. they need to be 'educated' to further political careers! that's real philanthropy.)

>>It's like me showing a video of McCain being friends with a guy who became the leader of the KKK in Montana and saying McCain is a racist.<<

If you have a video of McCain being trusted to spread 60 million dollars for the leader of the KKK and launching his political career in the home of the leader of the KKK, that's something we should all know about. You don't? Great parallel. Thanks. Very enlightening.

>> I'm perfectly capable and happy of living my own life and making my own living.  Maybe you shouldn't assume so much?<<

You're the one talking about how horrible capitalism is and how we absolutely need to genetically engineer ourselves.

>>Someone incapable of contributing to theoretical and philosophical discussions with anything other than rather dull and cliche personal attacks.<<

Is the irony of this statement is lost on you. I won't insult you. Everyone with a brain can figure it out on their own. I clearly stated what RIDICULOUS claims you made that I could only explain by your being either a small child, being as developed as a small child, or your plethora or psychological problems. I was specific. You just vaguely respond with personal attacks saying 'stop insulting me!'

You talk about theoretical and philosophical discussions, but, frankly, you're too dumb to engage in them. It's a bloody shame.

I've studied Catholic Studies, Theology, and Philosophy at major universities. Based on what you've spouted, you haven't. Based on what you're spouting, you haven't been educated much and what educatoin you have received has been by some religious authority or individual which expected you to believe what you were reading, even if the author wrote what he did (at a time when the church would do bad things to him if he didn't... like kill him) in order to keep his life.

While I think the idea of a higher power is nice and all, and while there's a point in that all of this stuff didn't just HAPPEN TO BE HERE, (What luck that would be; I know, right!?), the answer is certainly not known, conceptualized, understood, or explained enough that I would ever call it a "higher power" or "god."

Frankly, to claim that the answer to the question could or should be called any of these things is IGNORANT. It's narrow-minded. It closes your brain from trying to figure the TRUTH. It's framing the question with categories of answers that NO evidence or logic narrows the answer down to.

To claim that wikipedia is logically going to prove that you're right with your ignorant response is all the evidence of your ignorance that we need to excommunicate you!

BTW, Descartes' proof of god is AWFUL. That's why no one talks about it seriously.

Question 1:

(1)
McCain because, though he's an asshole and I don't like him or his politics, Obama is a socialist with a radical agenda and ignorant economic policy which he does not regret will cripple the Amerikan economy. I'm not a socialist and I don't desire to hurt the Amerikan people. Me and Obama disagree on both points more than me and McCain.

Question 2:

(2)
Depends on how many stupid kids with no experience actually living life and taking care of themselves (let alone a family) or educatoin in history, economics, or politics and other stupid people vote. I despise them both, but Obama is banking on ignorant turds more than McCain.

I've never been particularly impressed by Bill Maher's intelligence. Or integrity for that matter. I'm a libertarian. And he's cracked some good ones that've given me a good laugh from time to time. But I don't think he's that funny. His jokes are usually politically expedient and sometimes he just manages it in a funny way. But his aim is the political, not the humor. He's not that bright, he's not that honest, and he's not that concerned with the truth. As often as he calls out people on behavior that needs calling out on he calls out people on good behavior that libertarians embrace. He's got strange nanny-state preferences for a libertarian.

I saw a minute or two of his interview with that daily show guy I can't stand much of anymore today. I respect the point he made about the role of myths thousands of years ago. There are reasons they were made up. There were reasons people believed in them. And there are reasons we don't believe virtually any of them now. I say virtually because a FEW of those myths gained so many believers and were such holistic myths that they were whole philosophical guides to life (so comprehensive they include life AFTER life!!) that people believe them today. People today view religion as a dimension of life. They just accept it. They shut off the part of the brain/intellect that asks "where did this all come from?" and evaluates the answers to this question.

I'm an avid fan of the individual. I respect whatever you want to believe in. But I think intelligence is healthy to actively engage and we'd all do well to honestly evaluate the things we were told to believe. Because a lot of people have been told a lot of things. And whether or not any of them are right, they aren't all!

I hate academia, but reading inviltrist's drool makes me wish he had to support half of the statements he makes--because he makes them up.

You're not the first person to forsee mankind's demise in the next 10-100-1,000,-10,000-100,000-10^999999999 years.

That you don't like capitalism does not ensure us of your intellect that you obviously think so highly of. That you're TERRIFIED of the prospect of taking care of yourself just suggests you have the intellect and competence of a child.

There is an inherent instinct in humanity to evolve? Didn't see that one coming.

"Modern Civilization as it stands today is counter-productive.  Society, and the human animal itself needs to be modified at the structural level."

Somebody's depressed and plagued by feelings of inferiority. You should probably talk to a psychologist and a psychiatrist. I'd go with the psychologist first because a psychiatrist is going to diagnose and drug the hell out of you real fast and you won't have the prospects to actually cure yourself in that state.

"The intelligent thing to do is use technology/genetic engineering, ect to tweak those emotions so they no longer are a double edged sword."

You don't get the irony of this statement? It's okay. It's because you're one of the lesser-beings that you despise so much. Our intelligence is ALREADY capable of "tweaking" emotions. We're ALREADY capable of acting rationally in the face of emotions and even severe stress and emotional distress.

The fact that YOU struggle with this is suggested by the fact that you started a thread to discuss how imperative it is that we genetic engineer ourselves to survive... That's not a quack theory of a child or lunatic. Nooooo...

Yeah, I remember those days. I don't think i've played since 2004 and haven't been active in this forum (or here at all) for 99% of the time since. We had a few creationists. Some of the stuff they come up with was absolutely hillarious. They were SOOOOO into it. And the off-the-wall stuff you can come up with when your belief is that God made everything that exists in 6 days a few thousand years ago is pretty limitless.

Yes. I am dismissive of anyone who holds a position with NO evidence supporting it who contends that their view is the truth, not the position with ALL the evidence supporting it. Anyone who isn't is narrow-minded. Your faith is lovely. It's touching. But it's not evidence that you are correct.

Come on there are no creationists in here anyway, just idiots who want to say they're open-minded.