http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/debacle-liberalism_765681.html?nopager=1#[...] Critics of the president may be wrong. Obamacare may turn out to be one of the most successful and popular programs in the history of man. But whether they are right or wrong, there is at least no confusion as to who has ownership of the Affordable Care Act. We all know who stood where, when; who supported it and who opposed it; and we are now in the process of being able to judge the claims of Obamacare against the reality of Obamacare. An abstract debate can now be measured by its true effects on the nation as a whole. It looks to us that liberalism, in getting what it wanted, will end up doing significant and sustained damage to itself, to public confidence in government (which is already near historic lows), and to its conception of the welfare state. It would be quite an historical irony if Obama, who raised such extravagant hopes among progressives when he ran for office, turns out to have a shattering effect on contemporary liberalism. But that may be just where we are heading. Barack Obama may turn out to be the best thing to happen to conservatism since Ronald Reagan. These styles of arguments are I think flawed, like saying the Black Plague was the best thing to happen to Europe. Yes there is growth through adversity, in some cases, but in other cases, it just crushes people. Was Communism the best thing to happen to East Germany? Stalin the best thing that ever happened to Russia? The logical flaws are self evident. |
|
|
|
Can any Christian explain Jesus Christ's teachings on objective ethics working without trust that an indirect authority can define what is and is not objectively ethical? ....
Furthering this point: is this faith being placed in the lord, or ultimately in the men who wrote of him?
You'll find if you look, that very deep thinkers have argued and discussed this question at length. I can tell you the short story on my view, which is that religions, including the bible, are the tools tyrants use to get what they want from people. Lying, as you call it, and myth/myth building are really not the same thing. |
|
|
|
..........search for the words in RED.....
Hi, sock puppet. |
|
|
|
.....
I'd say the one who is paranoid or fears the lion is the one who be killed by it, not the one who's calm and collective. Have you not seen that video of the South African (I believe) young girl who can peacefully interact with lions?
Don't believe that type of stuff. One day the lion gets irritated, or has a sudden impulse for a tasty young girl, and it's all over. .....
...I beg to differ that atheism isn't a religion. Religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe according to the internet.
Atheism asserts a firm belief in the absence of a god. Agnosticism would be less of a religion.
That's what I was trying to point out. Not that we could use dialect and logic to discuss the issue, but rather that many so called 'atheists' show all the marks of fervent believers. |
|
|
|
....
You do realize that the only reason that they have such low 'taxable' reported incomes is because they don't tell the truth about all the cash profit, right? Do you really think that full-time professional sex workers in California only make $25K per year? Seriously, would you do that kind of work for that? If they don't make four times that much, they couldn't afford to live in California. They only qualify for medicaid because the government buys their BS.
They aren't going to have their tax returns "fully vetted". Ever. If you have a job that removes your income tax from your wages before you get it, then you're subsidizing their (high risk) lifestyles.....
Tax returns?  You do realize that one of the goals of this scam is to move all the undocumented people into the tax system, right? They can only get their 'subsidies or free health care' if they are in the system. |
|
|
|
Look, a 'need for myth' must be stronger than a need for rationality, or perhaps both coexist in any individual human at differing or the same times, or perhaps the exist to differing degrees in different humans.
I guess what I was saying is that the assertion that 'we don't need myth' may actually be false, then the person who is inclined to need it finds it nonetheless when he or she rejects religion. They find it in government, or in science, or who knows where. They become radical ecology freaks worried about the End of Gaia as we Know it, the Apocalpse of Doom, the hurricanes, the 20 foot high wall of water that is coming for us.
Some of them, you know they'd be less annoying if they'd just stuck with religion instead of 'progressing'....
Humans are of byzantine complexity, and can be one thing at one moment and seem to be something completely different the next. The religion of Atheism nonwithstanding...I suggest then that you can only be truly free if you reject, along with the traditional religions, the religion of Atheism and other modern progressive delusions.
You seem to be confused about atheism. Atheism is not a religion in the same way not believing in unicorns is not a religion or not collecting stamps is not a hobby, there are atheistic religions like Buddhism, but atheism in itself is not a religion.... It certainly can be a religion, believed in with faith that it is true, by devout and pius true believers. In fact, it necessarily has it's origins in systems of belief. Leaving aside that you could have no atheism without religion, atheism in the days before microscopes could only exist on faith. "I can't prove it but I just KNOW there is no spontaneous creation!!! It can't be that spirits go into matter and make it come alive!"That's faith and belief if it ever was. |
|
|
|
....
Yes, our brain evolved to believe, to obey authority, it is an evolutionary advantage and now we can understand that, no need for god of the thunders and gods of love and all that crap, are you familiar with this? I can elaborate a little more...
What??? No god of thunder? No gods of love? By Odin I strike you down, blasphemer now blind to the visions of Venus and Aphrodite. Haha, very funny.  But it's really an amazing thing how we are wired to believe. Look, a 'need for myth' must be stronger than a need for rationality, or perhaps both coexist in any individual human at differing or the same times, or perhaps the exist to differing degrees in different humans. I guess what I was saying is that the assertion that 'we don't need myth' may actually be false, then the person who is inclined to need it finds it nonetheless when he or she rejects religion. They find it in government, or in science, or who knows where. They become radical ecology freaks worried about the End of Gaia as we Know it, the Apocalpse of Doom, the hurricanes, the 20 foot high wall of water that is coming for us. Some of them, you know they'd be less annoying if they'd just stuck with religion instead of 'progressing'.... Humans are of byzantine complexity, and can be one thing at one moment and seem to be something completely different the next. The religion of Atheism nonwithstanding...I suggest then that you can only be truly free if you reject, along with the traditional religions, the religion of Atheism and other modern progressive delusions. |
|
|
|
everytime you go to a restaurant, tell the waiter you only tip in bitcoin.....
No, I won't do that. But I make a point of asking any and everyone that asks me for money, whether it is political donation, or charity, if they take bitcoin, then I tell them it's the only way I make such donations. There's an exception for the bum that lives under the overpass. |
|
|
|
....
Yes, our brain evolved to believe, to obey authority, it is an evolutionary advantage and now we can understand that, no need for god of the thunders and gods of love and all that crap, are you familiar with this? I can elaborate a little more...
What??? No god of thunder? No gods of love? By Odin I strike you down, blasphemer now blind to the visions of Venus and Aphrodite. |
|
|
|
.....I'm not advocating an "eye for eye".
When the first guy invented the first god, I'm sure there was another guy next to him that said I don't believe what you're saying, there have been atheists as long as there have been theists.
Epicurus (341–270 B.C.E.)
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
And yes, now we have science, but there are people that still maintain beliefs that go against reality, beliefs from the bronze age, and that is ridiculous and dangerous!
It's not that there were not athiests, but that they existed in a differing context. Such an athiest might have disagreed that there was a 'supreme being', but he never would have doubted natural spirits of the forest, or of the storm, the ocean, or the obvious nature of spontaneous creation. Thus, he wasn't even an athiest as you think of it today. In such historical times, the arguments were more polytheistic vs theistic, one versus three on the godhead, so forth and so on. Atheism is just a specific branch of skepticism. Buddhism is technically an atheist religion and they have all sort of magical stuff. My point was, skeptics have been persecuted for ages for speaking against outrageous claims, and now we can speak freely and educate, mock, make fun of, the ridiculous stuff people still believe, I don't care if they believe a middle-eastern Jew is there savior, or astrology or ancient aliens, if it is ridiculous it has to be pointed out as such, people need to gain some critical thinking. I'm skeptical about all that. Evidence exists that atheists are not so terribly rational. In the US, about 80% are Democrat and go along with those progressive agendas. They replace - to what extent may be debatable, yes - believe in an all powerful god with a belief in an all powerful government. I think this happens at a subconscious level, after a vacuum exists from taking away the god-stuff - someone like Obama comes in and fills in the gap. We've all seen that happen. I'm sketching out the details here, and not trying to impute the negativity to this phenomena that it might seem. Rather I see it as more like a human 'need for myth/mysticism/spiritual' which will get filled one way or another. Obviously, a 'need for myth' is opposed to rationality. The reverse of this is worth noting too, it is not uncommon to see very sharp scientists who have a humble and honest faith in one or another form of religion. I can't see anything wrong or illogical with that. |
|
|
|
.....I'm not advocating an "eye for eye".
When the first guy invented the first god, I'm sure there was another guy next to him that said I don't believe what you're saying, there have been atheists as long as there have been theists.
Epicurus (341–270 B.C.E.)
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
And yes, now we have science, but there are people that still maintain beliefs that go against reality, beliefs from the bronze age, and that is ridiculous and dangerous!
It's not that there were not athiests, but that they existed in a differing context. Such an athiest might have disagreed that there was a 'supreme being', but he never would have doubted natural spirits of the forest, or of the storm, the ocean, or the obvious nature of spontaneous creation. Thus, he wasn't even an athiest as you think of it today. In such historical times, the arguments were more polytheistic vs theistic, one versus three on the godhead, so forth and so on. |
|
|
|
.... should serve as another mortal blow to both the Affordable Care Act and the Democrats' entire philosophy of super-intelligent central planning by an all-wise, supremely capable government.
We need some reporters to wise up like that. |
|
|
|
http://www.wnd.com/2013/10/muslim-brotherhood-just-like-evangelicals/#ij4fE7L3KCqcYd0w.99 Department of Homeland Security adviser Mohamed Elibiary has penned yet another controversial tweet, this time likening the Muslim Brotherhood to evangelical Christians and comparing the Brotherhood’s indoctrination to Bible study groups. WND found that Elibiary tweeted: “Ignorant #Islamophobes (redundant I know) protested my saying #MB like #Evangelicals. Usra like Bible study grp.” The “MB,” or Muslim Brotherhood, seeks a worldwide Islamic caliphate ruled by Shariah, or Islamic law, and teaches followers to help establish an Islamic state wherever they live. Well, at least this is more correct. Muslim Brotherhood aren't actually extremists, like the Taliban, and want to make the world Islamic about as much as conservative Christians want to make the world Christian (no one is disputing that connservative christians want to make USA a Christian nation, and make the rest of the world Christian, right?) In 1928, the Muslim Brotherhood was founded by an Egyptian school teacher named Hassan al-Banna. He believed that all the problems of the Muslim world were a direct result of Muslims not living the true Islamic life, as modeled by Muhammad and those the first few generations of Muslims. Al-Banna's fundamentalist interpretation of Allah's religion, as well as the fraternity of Qur'an crazed lunatics his insanity put into was motion, were born of a desire to revive Islam as practiced during of the time of the Prophet. The ideological heritage of Al-Banna's theology can be traced to an 18th century Muhammadan by the name of Muhammad Ibn al-Wahhab. al-Wahhab articulated that it was a societal need to return to the literal reading and implementation of Islam which was the source of all that ailed the Muslims. In his motiviational writing, Jihad, al-Banna clearly communicates the nature of the ideological principles upon which he brought the Brotherhood into existence. Jihad Jihad is an obligation from Allah on every Muslim and cannot be ignored nor evaded. Allah has ascribed great importance to jihad and has made the reward of the martyrs and the fighters in His way a splendid one. Only those who have acted similarly and who have modeled themselves upon the martyrs in their performance of jihad can join them in this reward. Furthermore, Allah has specifically honoured the Mujahideen {those who wage jihad} with certain exceptional qualities, both spiritual and practical, to benefit them in this world and the next. Their pure blood is a symbol of victory in this world and the mark of success and felicity in the world to come. Those who can only find excuses, however, have been warned of extremely dreadful punishments and Allah has described them with the most unfortunate of names. He has reprimanded them for their cowardice and lack of spirit, and castigated them for their weakness and truancy. In this world, they will be surrounded by dishonour and in the next they will be surrounded by the fire from which they shall not escape though they may possess much wealth. The weaknesses of abstention and evasion of jihad are regarded by Allah as one of the major sins, and one of the seven sins that guarantee failure. Islam is concerned with the question of jihad and the drafting and the mobilisation of the entire Umma {the global Muslim community} into one body to defend the right cause with all its strength than any other ancient or modern system of living, whether religious or civil. The verses of the Qur'an and the Sunnah of Muhammad (PBUH {Peace Be Unto Him}) are overflowing with all these noble ideals and they summon people in general (with the most eloquent expression and the clearest exposition) to jihad, to warfare, to the armed forces, and all means of land and sea fighting. [...] My brothers! The ummah that knows how to die a noble and honorable death is granted an exalted life in this world and eternal felicity in the next. Degradation and dishonor are the results of the love of this world and the fear of death. Therefore prepare for jihad and be the lovers of death. Life itself shall come searching after you. Elibiary is fucking nuts. From the MB stem all the roots of Muslim terrorism as we know it - going all the way back to the 1982 Olympics, the plane hijacking, most of the bombings.
no one is disputing that connservative christians want to make USA a Christian nation, and make the rest of the world Christian, right?I've met some that had crazy ideas like that, but most of 'conservative Christians' don't have crazy ideas. |
|
|
|
Please read what I said at first, and then you will realize that some of you are posting off-topic here. This is not a thread for debating with fools about whether God is, or whether Jesus is, or not. And I quote from the Holy Bible: 'The Fool Has Said In His Heart, There Is No God' What did I say in my first post? Reply here in this thread if you believe in Jesus ChristNot only are some people blind and deaf, but they also cannot read, nor understand. Ah, quoting the Bible, here's my favorite: Ezekiel 23:19-21 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. So you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when in Egypt your bosom was caressed and your young breasts fondled. Not bad, not bad... I have one that I made up, which in my posting please understand I do not mean it to apply to you (it doesn't), but it simply seems like something that at times, needs to be said. It goes like this. "Verily, I say unto thee that twice milenia in the past, no man and certainly no god-man walked the Earth commanding others to be complete assholes." Now it happens I just finished watching a great movie, with many biblical scriptures of great import, and it will take me a while to comprehend this movie and the many hidden meanings. Pulp Fiction... |
|
|
|
What I would love is for the GOP to get arrested and then the Democrats fuck everything up by themselves so they have no one to blame, but I realise that's just wishful thinking, this two party system exists purely so that the blame can be placed on the other side for the next election.
Since the blame game gets played regardless, that issue is a non starter. The Repubs need to loudly and clearly state that they are not the party which exists to fix the Democrats' utopian fuck ups and turn them into halfway plausible socialist implementations. The Repubs need to go radical. Small government, anti- Washington, anti-establishment. hahahaha....I know it's wishful thinking... |
|
|
|
So... The most intolerable religion right now on this planet in 2013 regarding gay rights and women's rights is the Christian religion? Got it.
Can you believe they let women drive cars and buy bitcoins in the USA and Russia? Incredible!
Yeah, I'm waiting for Rassah's response to all this. Somehow I do believe he can put it into a rational and reasonable perspective. ....pretty good argument could be made for the exact opposite, that the MOST TOLERANT religions are the Christian ... or to put it more accurately, the Judeochristian cultures... Obviously one is more intolerant than the other, but the main problem is that they are both intolerant, and thus neither should be involved with people who's job it is to kill other people. I mean, how little murder, misogynism, homophobia, and racism is OK, exactly? maybe the problem is not the religion per se or the culture it resides in and influences, but theocracy? Ayn Rand had some pretty persuasive arguments against religion when it became an arm of the state, which she viewed as inevitable in many cases (fascism, socialism, communism). |
|
|
|
....
Ridiculous beliefs deserve to be ridiculed.
Don't forget too much people suffered and died for not following those ridiculous beliefs, atheists have been persecuted for way too long, killed, burned, tortured, dismembered, banished, shunned, associated with immorality, robbed of their possessions, chased away from their property, but now there's free speech and those people better have thick skin if they still maintain those same ridiculous beliefs.
The problem with that point of view is that for most of history, atheism was ridiculous. The invention of the microscope changed that. Before then, spontaneous generation of life was obvious and this 'proved' the existence of supernatural phenomena as part of and parcel of life. Hence, the spiritual world existed. It was only a question of one or many gods, but that question could not have rationally had an option of 0 gods. So for me to accept your initial premise means that I must accept as rational the past ridicule and suffering of atheists. Which I do not. You seem to be advocating a 'what goes around comes around' or an 'eye for an eye'. But (some of the Christians on the forum might comment on this) that seems to be contrary to the fundamental teachings of the New Testament. |
|
|
|
Google made serious efforts for transparency.
...of our data and conversations to the Obama administration, yes... ...which top execs at Google helped get relected..... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
