At 11/24/09 07:05 PM, basherboy357 wrote: I wont make any implications, but 98% of the African American voters in my state voted for Obama.

"I won't make any implications...but let me make it very clear I'm saying that race was the key factor"

I won't say anything more.

"Because I've already made it clear that I'm saying race is a factor...but I'm hiding from that fact like a little bitch cause I don't want to be called a racist". Pssh, own your fucking views man.

I think a big reason Obama got elected is because he wasn't Republican and the Republican party has done a good job through actual fuck ups, and through just the old "the party with the unpopular president is obviously responsible for all the problems in the country at that time". Most people are simple creatures that don't really understand how government works it seems.

At 11/24/09 12:19 AM, 4urentertainment wrote: Well, everything religion tells you to do. It does for a reason. You can practice your religion to the fullest and be married and have all the fun with your wife. I am not exactly sure, but weren't the religious institutions the ones who made that rule? That priests can't have sex? As far as I know, it wasn't mentioned in the Bible itself.

It isn't, but this is one of those rules that some sects adhere to, but most do not. As I said, my argument was that while you had a point that most of the time holds true, it is not universal. Catholicism for one, has many rules about what it's clergy can't do, and then rules as to what it's followers cannot do (like divorce, abortion, or any form of birth control). So already religion limits choice in this case...which is interesting I think when you consider the idea of free will and free choice being so gosh darn important according to the Bible.

Eating pork for example, another thing religion tells you not to do. While everyone may eat it normally, religion forbids it. If you do a google search on "eating pork" you'll get all these results about how it's harmful. Drinking alcohol, another example. While a little beer will do no harm for some people, for others who get drunk cause a whole lot of harm.

Just about EVERYTHING you do is harmful. Honestly? I think nature built humanity to be susceptible to just about everything as a compensation for the larger brains and all the benefits we get from that. But as you point out, here again is religion telling people how to live and limiting choice or things they can enjoy in life. But as I've said, I got no beef with the essential message, the be a good person bit. I'm totally on board that train.

So you're looking for a little more proof then. Perhaps not the ideal solid proof, but something more authentic, reliable to read? That thing which separates a book of fiction from a holy scripture?

Sure. I'd like something a little more solid as to the authenticity then "an invisible voice spoke to me and told me it was God and I wrote down what it said". How is it that Muhammad, Jesus, Moses, or any other prophet was listening to a divine spirit, but if I say to you I've heard God speak to me directly, I will be labeled crazy and schizophrenic most likely and locked away? I have the same evidence for my claim as they do...so why are they more authentic a source then me? Because people just took it on faith for millenia now?

God doesn't love us until you actually obey his orders.

O_O, oh, do what I say or get denied my love and don't be special...isn't this the sort of parent we lock up and take their kids away for their own good?

The way God has it, is that heaven wouldn't really mean much if you were just born in it, or if you never did anything to deserve it. We all go through this short journey, that is life on earth. What do you do there affects what your after-life will be like.

I'm aware of the concept, but again I don't see the fundamental WHY of all that. Why does heaven have to mean less if you're just born into it? Huh? He built us, if we're using the appreciation argument again I keep refuting he can just program us to appreciate heaven. Because he built us, he made us and therefore he had the ultimate control over how we are.

It's like you're being told to play a video game. A very hard video game. And if you do well you'll be given a reward. Whatever happens in this game doesn't really matter in the real world, if you get shot and killed, doesn't matter. Once the game is over, you'll go back to your normal life. It's same with life on earth. Whatever happens here, no matter how bad you may suffer, it's all temporary. And you'd be rewarded after it.

Or punished. That's the part you're glossing over. There is that clear situation that negates your analogy that says "but if you DON'T play by the rules, and if you get shot or killed after breaking these rules, it's game over with no continues and you get to suffer the worst pain ever".

This is another glaring example of the power of the lobbyists in the film and record industry's. Even though I've seen studies that have consistently been cited saying that CD sales have IMPROVED with the advent of torrents and what not. I'm not saying I'm all aboard with taking money out of artists pockets, but this to me smacks more of the middle man is getting pissed off that he's now been proven to be unimportant in the distribution between artist and consumer, and that enterprising artists could actually find BETTER and more direct means of reaching their audience.

I wholeheartedly oppose these sorts of measures and tend to feel that this is the last dying gasp of the record industry as it tries to stay relevant and ultimately will collapse as musicians realize they don't need to play their game. As for the movie industry? Oh come on guys, Twilight just shattered the shit out of all known first day records and what not...bootlegging has been around forever, you ain't hurting, it's just an attempt to subvert personal freedom so they get every penny possible. Screw that.

At 11/23/09 12:54 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: avie- what's the point in creating something if you already know what's going to happen

Why indeed? I'm just making a statement based on what the texts say about the Judeo-Christian God who it was my understanding we were discussing. Under that text it is said he's all-powerful and all-knowing.

I challenge the idea that god is all powerful. I think it is not.

That seems a rather fast and convenient rationalization to avoid dealing with my points. Then of course it becomes if you don't believe God is all powerful, what limitations do you believe he has and why?

At 11/22/09 03:09 PM, Ericho wrote: Well, I agree with you on what you are saying that he allows this things to happen, but not that he directly causes it.

Not directly insofar as he wasn't there to impregnate their mothers and they come from his seed, but when we talk about something like this on an omniscient, omnipotent being, we probably have to redefine the word "directly". Because he KNOWS these people will be born, he knows when, he knows where, he knows it, from the beginning of time onward he knows. He then let's that happen, he could stop it, but he doesn't. He let's them do what they do and they kill and kill and kill. They even kill the people that are supposed to be his "chosen ones" the ones he's supposed to love the best. This is what I can't get my head around. That behavior does NOT meet the definition of the word "love" in any way shape or form. You don't let something you love get shit on and killed.

These people did bad things out of their own free will, and if you have no free will, there's in no point in living.

Belief as fact again. I keep asking you guys not to do this. Also as has been pointed out it's hard to positively prove free will and even if we grant it exists I go back to examples I've made of places where the government oppresses the people and limits their decisions and options and yet they go on living and seem to be ok with the situation. So this is the problem with making statements based on your belief system like their facts.

I'm glad that you believe this. I don't take offense to anyone being atheist or anything. Where it becomes annoying is when people say that they are superior to someone else because of belief or lack of it. By believing that everything should think like you, that strikes me as supremacy.

As Bach pointed out, I can agree with the sentiment, but the hypocrisy of you saying it given the statements you've made in the past is pretty much "ugh" inducing. I suggest you remember those teachings about "the high road" "setting an example" and "the golden rule" going forward here. There's a lot of people with superiority complexes on both sides of the debate.

At 11/22/09 10:15 PM, MaraquanWocky wrote: Anyway...I didn't see Survivor Series yet. Don't ruin it for me. But I think Undertaker retained, right? 'Cause there's gonna be a match for the Heavyweight title at the ECW/SmackDown! event I'm going to, with Punk and Batista and 'Taker...am I right? Does the Undertaker retain his title?! GOD, TELL ME!! I GOTS TO KNOW!

Taker retained with plenty of fodder to believe JeriShow is going to be headed towards an imminent break up. Which then begs the question of who are your next undisputed tag champs? Seems like unless they want to go with "We just turned on each other because the belt is the most important thing" story with DX, they don't seem to be a viable team to put the belts on either. Perhaps this just means the undisputed tag titles will already lose their luster.

At 11/20/09 02:22 AM, genius21 wrote: if im not mistaken, the eastern orthodox church (the eastern part of the former roman empire and church of the byzantine empire) and the roman catholic church were the same church but split because of differences in doctrine (much the same way that the lutherans split from the catholic church)

Very true, though unification was attempted, especially as the eastern orthodox church based in Constantinople found itself under increasing threat from Sultan Mehmed the 2nd. He ultimately led a successful siege against the city, conquering it and renaming it Istanbul.

At 11/21/09 11:49 PM, 4urentertainment wrote: If none of them are right, and there is nothing after death, then you'll simply be unconscious after your death. You won't feel any grief over a wasted life or anything. And just because you've followed a certain religion doesn't mean you've wasted your life. Most religious teachings tell you to do good things, things that should be done without being told to.

Yeah, but there's also those that tell you NOT to do things, things that aren't necessarily bad or harmful because it's "sinful" or "wrong". Like Catholicism springs to mind. If I become a Catholic Priest I cannot get married, and I cannot have sex ever again. If I die and there's no God, which ya know, is why I did all that stuff, how can you claim I didn't miss out by following my religion? You're about 99% right though, gotta give you that one, but there's still some problems with applying it across the board :)

I think you misunderstood me here, what I meant to say was that as long there is doubt in either side, as long as there is a conflict, as long as there is an odd one that preaches to the other side, then following your religion will be a challenge, as it was meant to be.

Oh sure, there's never going to be universal agreement unless one side can come up with incontrovertible proof the other is wrong. My issue was it sounded like you weren't "playing fair" on that point, that you were seemingly trying to act like one side might have a certain inferiority of strength in belief. I just don't see it, I think it's probably about even.

If He did that, then life would have no purpose. He could have just created humans incapable of sin and thrown them all in heaven. But He did that with angels, as for humanity, he's thrown them on earth to test and separate them, for a group shall go to heaven and the other group shall end up in hell. Why did God do that? Why did God even create the universe when it shall be gone eventually? Why did he do all that? He never said why. He only said what.

And I'm just supposed to believe all that on faith? Because some guy on a mountain was told this and swore he talked to God? That's my big issue really with these ideas. I can accept a God, I can even buy into the God, ok? I can get with that...but getting with the idea that we have actually had contact with him? That we are in any way shape or form in possession of knowledge of how he decided to structure the universe or why? It's harder for me to believe that. That message was given to too small a group, and it's been manipulated, voted on, and agendatized (yes I know, I made up a word) over millenia. If you took this into a court of law, they'd throw it out as hearsay. Is it POSSIBLE this occured? Oh sure, I like to take the tact that just about anything is possible. But likely? I'm not so sure I can get on that train. That's where to me faith and magical thinking comes in.

True, but from the point of view of God, once you die, you're off to a better place. So it'd seem like the logical thing to do, if He loves you, He'd want you to rest from all the troubles of earth.

See, again, I'm having problems with God's "logic" here. Because again, I bring up a parent. A parent NEVER wants their child to suffer in the human sphere (a loving parent anyway, which is the model we're using). So why not give people a good earthly life, and then an even better paradise to go to afterward? Why is there a need to put you in this often times nasty house of horrors beforehand? Also Hell, why have it, why allow it. Why allow people horrible enough to have to be placed there, and allow the whole war at the end of time thing?

Perhaps this point would be clearer with an example?

I've been making that point I felt multiple times. You have to take it on faith that a loving, omnipotent parent, decided the best way to show that love is to fuck with us for about a 100 years and then if we don't go completely insane or break any of his rules, we get an ultimate paradise. It's one thing to have human parents operate under a "discipline and reward" system. They're limited in what they can do, they can't entirely control you're personality or edit out bad traits, only discourage negatives and encourage positives. But here we have the BUILDER of humanity, the big guy, the one who MADE US WHAT WE ARE, and he actively CHOSE to allow us to suffer. He CHOSE to allow monsters like Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Caligula, Dahmer, Gacy, Gein, et al. to come into existence and walk the earth and make it a scary and sometimes lousy place to live. Why the hell would he logically do that? Because there is no logic to that. It's not love, it defies what the definition of love is. To allow for a being like God to do all that, and yet still love us, you have to suspend logic and start taking things on faith and magical thinking. There's a plan, that's why. We aren't meant to understand it, that's why. In short: Trust that he did this for the best possible reason and it NEEDED to be done. That is not asking someone to use logic, it's asking someone to use faith. Faith has nothing to do with logic. Faith flies in the face of logic.

I'm not saying religion is bad, or you shouldn't have it. I'm cool with people having religion and enjoying it, especially if it really does enrich their lives and make them better human beings. That's great, that's awesome, more power to you. But what I DON'T like is if you then turn around, look at a guy like me who has fundamental questions, and act like I'm the wrong headed ninny because I can't see the clear "logic" in it. Especially when you're going to try and use words that are incompatible with your belief system like "logic". It's enough to me if you want to say "well, gonna have to disagree with you, my faith is what it is".

At 11/21/09 04:49 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: I wasn't aware that I was only allowed to use facts in a discussion involving spirituality.

Saying things like "there's more then one universe" is not just talking spirituality, it's stating a fact the way you put it. Saying "I BELIEVE there's more then one universe" is a whole different kettle of wax. Because then I'd be asking you how you came to that conclusion. It's all about how you phrase things.

I'm just TALKING dude, sharing my ideas.

I'm not?

Fuck.

Now you know how most of your posts have made me feel.

Prove it? I can't prove ANYTHING.

Great, so please refrain from stating your beliefs like their iron clad facts and you won't have these problems with me.

G'day to you.

And to you as well.

At 11/20/09 04:27 AM, Dogbert581 wrote: To be honest if I was President/Prime Minister/Fuhrer/Grand Mugwump I would be pleased with the way I was handling the country if the only criticisms my opponents could come up with focused on me personally rather than my policies

Oh, I know he does. But there ARE things to criticize, like the promises he's broken and the fact that there's the things I voted him in hoping he'd overturn from the last administration that he hasn't touched (wire tapping, the expansion of police power of the FBI and other agencies), and the things he's done that are exactly like Bush policies I felt were doomed from the start (stimulus, bail outs). He could be criticized on these things but it seems the detractors don't have the mental skill nor the patience to do a little basic reading and make these points. Better to chant easy memes like the Birthers do, or the people who chant he's a stealth muslim, or that he's an evil free mason, or a socialist (which of course assumes socialism is inherently evil), or (and yes, they do exist) he's black and therefore shouldn't be president.

Wanna criticize a politician? Criticize his fucking politics and have the facts to back it up and guess what? Maybe some people will listen and you'll get the change you want. Act like a nut screaming about made up bullshit and people will just dismiss you as a lunatic and listen to nothing you have to say.

*looks around* where the hell did this soap box come from?

At 11/20/09 01:20 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Yes, and I don't understand why people take issue with that. It's like I'm talking to a 5 year old about divorce or something.

I take issue with it from the stand point that you and people like you do two things when asked "why does a loving God allow suffering?":

1. You immediately try to answer that and fail miserably instead of just saying "I don't know, you'll have to ask him if you meet him"

2. You then resort to where you are now, that everybody is stupid because they can't understand that you're non-answer and obfuscation of the question is correct.

The ARROGANCE is what pisses me off.

"why does god do that."

why not?

Says the guy who a page or two back was arguing absolutes of good and evil and how the universe runs on morality...now you seem to be saying God plays dice and does whatever he pleases? Am I reading that correctly?

here's a thought, maybe god DID make other versions. we're just one in a long line of petri dishes.

Could be...too bad we only have proof for this petri dish.

There's more than one universe.

Fucking prove it or fuck off with stating personal opinion as absolute fact. That's just as annoying as the other arrogant non-answers you've supplied thus far.

At 11/20/09 12:20 AM, Outlaw88 wrote: Thats a very good point. Didn't Hogan used to tell kids to stay away from drugs during the 80's? The WWE needs to understand that there is line that they shouldn't cross with this kind of material. Punk is doing a good job in his role by acting like he is better than the audience but they also need to remember that they shouldn't fight him on the point of doing drugs. His attitude should be the problem, not the fact that he doesn't drink or smoke or do any of that other stuff.

Let's also consider all the problems WWE has had with guys dying of drug overdoses and guys like Jeff who repeatedly get busted. With Linda running for Senate and her opponents already digging up WWE footage to attack her values, it wouldn't be that hard or that stupid of them to dig up clips like Tuesday and go "see, see, they're ridiculing a guy who follows the rules and doesn't do anything wrong as nerdish and wrong to kids!!!" But I know, expecting WWE to think is the first mistake.

Dark Reign has been eating all my comics dollars basically. Blackest Night is something I'll most likely hit the trade and anything relevant later.

I think Marvel Zombies is pretty played out, the shark was jumped in the 3rd one and it's just blatant as a marketing tool now.

Speaking of which I've gotten into Deadpool a little from his appearances as it relates to the Dark Reign of Osborne but geez, this character is really able to support like four monthly books? I don't buy it, this smells to me like a situation where they're going to over-saturate that market and potentially scorch the earth for a few years. Like they did with The Punisher back in the day.

Speaking of Punisher...Franken-Castle...w...t...f?!

At 11/19/09 11:12 PM, Korriken wrote: on the other hand, it fits the book's story perfectly. lame and not very well thought out.

"I got an idea, let's rehash the "vampires vs werewolves thing yet again, and then butcher the vampire lore and make it completely and utterly inane, then turn it into some kind of crappy romance novel that women always drool over."

I honestly think the only reason these authors do books like that is to make the cash. They know the FORMULA will sell irregardless of anything else so they peddle it. It's why most "popular" fiction is fairly disposable. I mean, I love Dexter the TV show...but because it's been made into a great TV show I'm almost afraid to read the books for fear that I'll be like "dear God I should stick to the show...the price of Showtime is so much more worth it then the price for this".

I honestly think Sarah Palin swung the election towards him. Sarah Palin and the Recession hitting when it did. Because it was a tight race until McCain chose such a polarizing figure as a running mate, and then the recession came down and the reaction of most americans when a crisis happens is blame whoever the current president is.

Who needs ACORN in the face of that? This is my problem with a lot of these arch-conservatives who I think are being specifically targeted to help the left feel good about itself, these morons tend to focus on the stupid conspiracy theory when they're are perfectly reasonable explanations for Obama winning that would STILL give them the ability to say "it's not merit, it's trickery", or at least say such to some degree.

At 11/19/09 11:14 AM, Ericho wrote: Oh yeah, I heard about that too. I mean, if someone does in fact exist, but there's no evidence for it and no one believes in it, then for all intents and purposes, it does not exist, even if it may without our knowledge.

Well the idea there would be if God's only can exist so long as they have belief in them, then if no one believes they exist anymore, they won't. But I see where you're going here though. It's kind of like the Kraken, the stories of giant squids that could rise up and sink ships that were dismissed as just old wive's tales until we actually got some evidence that the fuckers do in fact exist (although they may have been a little exaggerated in the sea stories).

At 11/19/09 11:40 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: Infinite is subjective.

No it isn't, infinite has a very clear definition, never-ending.

avie: suffering is also subjective, maybe NONE of us are suffering at all.

Suffering is not entirely subjective, how about one SUFFERING physical pain? That is a concrete example of suffering. There are more subjective terms, yes, like different emotional states of suffering. But not all suffering is subjective, physical pain is suffering, and God allows physical pain, he built us to feel it, thus we're back at the starting gate: God allows suffering and I'd like to know why he does so.

And if you think that without suffering we could appreciate joy, well, then god would have to create something besides people, because that's not how we work.

You keep missing what I'm saying. GOD BUILT US!!! HE MADE US THE WAY WE ARE!!! HE COULD EASILY HAVE BUILT US TO ALWAYS BE JOYFUL AND TO APPRECIATE JOY!!! WITHOUT NEEDING THE CONTRAST!!!! Because he's ALL-POWERFUL and that's the nifty thing about being all powerful and the creator of the universe like he's supposed to be: You make all the fucking rules! Your argument only works if we suppose God is NOT an all powerful being and there are rules even God has to play by.

At 11/19/09 05:00 PM, adrshepard wrote: We sell debt to China, OMG that's so horrible. We shouldn't deal with countries when we don't agree with their domestic policies. It's shameful that we should engage in such an intimate and morally provocative venture like international debt financing with a country like China.

I'm just making the point that if we're really going to get up in arms about things the president does, wouldn't it be better to get up in arms about a president selling to "them evil commies?" vs. how he greets an ally? That's really all I was trying to point out.

You do have a point, however. Everyone likes to treat his friend nicely. For example, every time I see my best friend, Jim, I slowly unbuckle his pants and suck his dick. Some people may have a problem with that, but come now, is it so wrong to do something nice for a friend?

Wow, wild over reactions really change my mind so they do.

Oh really? Obama himself doesn't believe that; why else would he make such a point of "reaching out" to everyone, apologizing for American "arrogance", and cultivating his image as someone who wants to cooperate on the world stage? Our country's interests and priorities haven't changed. Obama was elected on his character, and we can see how weak and embarrassing it is when it comes time to further American interests abroad.

Yeah, he should be using the tried and true method of furthering American interests abroad: bomb or bully the fuckers what don't agree and install governments who kiss our ass and who cares how they treat their people.

I know you wrote more, but I'd probably just be repeating myself on the things I've already said. I don't see him doing anything truly "spineless" as you charge, I just see him doing what a president is supposed to do with our allies: occasionally meet with them and talk about stuff to keep them as allies.

At 11/19/09 11:04 AM, Outlaw88 wrote: One thing that pissed me off though. Tiffany saying that Punk wasn't human becase he doesn't drink. Look I get it that Punk is a heel and being straigt edge is now uncool in the eyes of the WWE but come on. I don't drink either so to hell with you, worst speaker on T.V. ever Tiffany.

It's especially stupid when you consider how WWE has been pushing their product is TV PG and they're going after kids again. I mean, shouldn't the point of Punk's gimmick at this point be that his ideals are admirable, but nobody likes a preachy self-righteous ass? It's a lot like what I thought was a bit stupid on ROH commentary when they'd sit there and be like "he looks down on you if you're drinking a beer or smoking a bowl while watching this" and it's like "uh, shouldn't we NOT be promoting illegal activity?" but considering the audience they market to, it's not as big a stupid as what Tiffany said last night, yeah.

At 11/18/09 07:14 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: I gave you the math, you ignored it.

No you didn't, you made a vague statement that it was mathematical, then made a vague statement it had to do with Newton's law and opposites or something. Then you posited that morality was somehow a scientific law of the universe which I refuted because I have taken sociology courses. Sociology being the scientific study of human communities and the first thing it teaches you is that not all communities our going to share the exact same universal morals because there are different mores, folkways, and other beliefs that will influence one societies cultural stew that are not present in others. For example America believes women are individuals who have the same freedoms as men. Many Islamic and Hinduistic nations believe women are property or should have far less rights. This is a perfect example of how morality is not universal, even in societies which are religious and essentially praying to the same monotheistic God that you are.

I won't ask again for you to respond to why you think god shouldn't allow suffering.

I think if God is the loving parent he's supposed to be he should do what any good loving parent does: protect his children. My parents love me, therefore they do everything they can, even now in my adult years, to help me and shield me from harm and suffering. My parents cannot completely shield me because well, they're mortal and don't have that kind of power. God ISN'T mortal, and God DOES have that power. God could end suffering tomorrow if he wanted to if we go with the definition that he's omnipotent. Hell he could rewind time and edit that out. He can do that but he doesn't, and my question is for what reason doesn't he do that? How can my loving creator, who loves me and only wants what's best for me, allow me to suffer all the sickness and pain I suffered as a child. To suffer the esophagal disorder I'm currently dealing with. Why did he take away pets, take away family, take away friends. Why does he do that to the children he's supposed to love? What the hell is the point when he can just make it not so? Why fucking screw with us in that way? To say nothing of how he made this planet to thrive on dangerous life crushing natural processes, and then filled the universe with shit that can wreck this planet in a heart beat. Hey, he stuck some of that crap even within our own SOLAR SYSTEM for fucks's sake! Unless maybe he really isn't the all loving being he's portrayed as. Maybe he doesn't care, or maybe he's just the ultimate scientist who created the universe and everything in it just to see what would happen.

You're answer to me is childish, the idea that we NEED to suffer to really appreciate joy, pssh, I don't see it. Or even better and more honest I think was the one where you basically admitted you don't know by saying "that's just the way it fucking is". I don't know why it's really so hard to say "I don't know why God does that, but rational or not, I believe there's a reason for it...your mileage may vary".

I love the overreaction I'm seeing in this thread. It's an awkward attempt at showing respect. For fuck's sake we're selling our debt to China...fucking China! A country ideologically and (in many cases) morally divergent with us. That has been going on since at least the last President. Japan is an ally. A friend, we can't be nice to our friends now? This is just another of those absolutely overblown and shitty criticisms of Obama that just distracts from evaluation of things he does or doesn't do that we actually should pay attention to.

Things like this make me wonder if FOX in it's own way isn't as guilty as CNN and others for covering trivial nonsense that actually winds up helping whoever the current administration happens to be.

What do you expect Democrats to do? Be happy that their people don't fall into line? Please.

Republicans would do the same, so would any other party if they had the kind of majority or base that the big two have. Is it right? No, I agree politicians should always vote with what they believe and not because the party tells them to vote a certain way.

I think the topic title is bullcrap though, because like I say, this isn't exclusive to "liberals" "conservatives" in the form of the Republican party would be pulling the same shiz. When you have a majority you expect and want that majority to look solid, you want the party to look strong. 39 people voting AGAINST the party presents the idea that the party isn't strong and unified, don't want that, there's elections to be one dammit!!!

So while I agree with your general points about voting, I think it's asinine and garbage to act like this is purely something only one side would do.

I could not agree more, I'm absolutely tired of this whole tolerance, diplomacy, and respecting other cultures we're allied with both militarily and economically! They need to respect OUR way of life because goddammit, America is just better then everybody in the history of ever! We should impeach Obama right now and bring back a President who knew how to handle the rest of the world...like George Bush dammit!!!

Anyone who agrees with the above should do the only American thing you can: stick your head in the oven after you've preheated it to about 500 degrees.

Seriously, we should be over this kind of dumb crap by now. It's not like he's in a hostile nation prostrating himself before their leaders and declaring them his sovereign, he's merely respecting the customs of an ally, as we would ask them to if they were here. It's just plain fucking rude to walk into somebody else's house and do whatever you want and expect them to just smile and take it.

At 11/18/09 04:13 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: I never said that sir. I was arguing against you saying there's no reason for suffering.

Oh yeah, with the mathematics you never proved...and the usual "God has a plan that we can't comprehend, teh edn" I forgot because it stopped being funny.

I love how you guys argue against religion using RELIGIOUS perspectives to back your claims.

Yes, because a religious perspective doesn't use evidence that can be proven. Magical thinking is what it uses.

Instead of scientific ones. Like I'm attempting.

No, you really aren't. You're just trying to throw out science words and concepts and then doing NOTHING, NOTHING! To explain how it supports your claims. Here's what you've done:

"It's all mathematical"

"Sounds like crap Jack, could you explain it though and show me why I'm wrong for thinking this?"

"It's not my fault you don't understand that it's Newton's Law"

"Uh, how is morality related to Newton's Law Jack? Sounds like it's more related to Sociology and what happened to the mathematical thing?"

You're trying to baffle people with bullshit and then say you explained yourself and your ideas when you really didn't at all.

Because that's the way it fucking works.

Wow, doesn't get more scientific then that does it? Thanks for finally just getting down to an honest answer: You don't know, you have no answer, game over.

At 11/18/09 01:59 PM, Ericho wrote: If there was in fact a God, just if there was, wouldn't it make sense that we wouldn't be able to comprehend God's true nature and not be able to answers questions like where did God from?

Potentially. But we could always theorize, like we do with everything else, or if that God really cares for us to know, then it could always tell us "so this is how I got here". One interesting theory I've heard posited by fantasists such as Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman is that God's DO exist, but ONLY because people believe in them. That with enough belief, the belief is made manifest into a real being. But then there's the downside to that idea, if belief disappears (such as say belief in the Olympians or similar older gods) then that entity must disappear as well. Because a god or goddess can't exist without people to believe in them.

Another possible explanation, which may in fact play into the "lower God/higher God" thought process is the idea of spiritualism. The idea that the human personality survives death and can then be channeled or can communicate with the living if an individual is attuned to doing so. So if we accept that as possible, or fact, perhaps this offers an alternate explanation to the stories of Gods throughout the ages other then "they are real" or "it's all bullshit to control people". Perhaps it's a spirit or several spirits that have been able to contact those psychically attuned to receive such messages and then represented themselves as supreme or divine beings. I've been doing a little reading on the subject lately and it seems to me (just spit balling really) that these entities must on some level REQUIRE acknowledgment and recognition to be able to continue to exert some will on the material world. Could this also explain the idea of angels as well beyond the "absolute truth" or "absolute fiction" rule? I think so. It's an alternate explanation that obviously can't be proven, and would largely depend on whether or not you believe in spiritualism or psychics, but still it is a thought.

At 11/18/09 12:59 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: ugh, yes things are subjective, that supports my claims.

No it doesn't. Because your claim has been that the universe is governed by morality, the morality of the Judeo-Christian God. Subjectivity DESTROYS your claims in fact.

So now it's his Free Masonry we're supposed to be scared of? Oh hell, I'm so behind the trends. I was still stuck on Stealth Muslim and Not A Natural Born Citizen.

I'll have to update accordingly. Seriously, can't these people find some legitimate things to gripe about like I see most of the Obama detractors here doing?

Last night was the first I caught ECW in awhile (I tuned in for the Burchill/Hurricane match) I really hope they send Burchill to SD! after this. The guy has a lot of potential and obvious in-ring talent. Katie Lea is also nice to look at too so I would love to see them really get a chance. Perhaps a team with Drew McIntyre could help them? Or just simply actually treat them with some respect. I just keep going back to him getting that Pirate gimmick over and seriously, how many people honestly could have done that?

At 11/17/09 05:50 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: "what is and what isn't"

holy shit, look opposites!

Holy shit, look at Jack continue to just throw shit at the wall and act like he's actually saying something!

I AM taking a class. And it leads me to believe this EVEN MORE.

Then you're going to fail that class if what you're taking is Sociology. Because what I gave you is the most basic conclusions that Sociology has provided us with. Morality is subjective and what is moral to one group of people may not be moral to another. This can and does apply even to world powers.

God created everything for a reason. Just because you can't see the obvious mathematical implications of absolutely having to have good AND evil, doesn't mean others can't.

I can't see it, and neither can anybody else. How about you fucking EXPLAIN it to us instead of resorting to "trust me, it exists"? Actually give us something to go on so we can try and understand your point. But I figure you actually can't because once again you're just pulling things out of your ass that will make your argument sound smart when it isn't. God requires magical thinking, not hard science or math, but if you try to link him with hard science and math, then surely no one will question all the holes in your argument right? Please.

At 11/17/09 07:49 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: Avie: so you blame george washington for george bush?

Of course not. I blame George Bush's parents and the people that voted for him for George Bush. God literally created humanity, that is a tenant of the faith, he BUILT US FROM SCRATCH!! So the capacity for evil and badness is something our designer built us with. Why is that so hard for you to admit? Oh right, because it's inconvenient to your view point, so you disgard it (like Ericho discards Hell a little ways down). I don't think you get to play that game unless you form your own sect of Christianity. But you can't say "I'm a member of this sect of a religion" and then say "but look, I don't believe EVERYTHING they say". That's where schisms and potentially heresey (spelling?) comes into the game.

So yeah, this example works not even a little. Just because George Washington was the first president doesn't mean he's responsible for the way every president ever acts. Washington didn't even create the office, he's just the first guy to hold it.

mathematically yes newtons law CAN apply to morality, because we evolved in its physical system, our morality is a product of a universe BUILT on opposing forces

Mathematics apply to morality now? Oh you really need to back all this up. Because you are reaching. Our morality is based on SOCIAL CONSTRUCTS, have you ever taken a course on Sociology? Go take Sociology 101 and you'll see that what morality is based on is the societal model of what is and isn't acceptable. There is no ABSOLUTE morality because if there was you'd see all societies holding the same values and deeming the same behaviors as unacceptable. You don't see that, that's why say one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Or tribes which have or continue to take the heads of enemies and shrink them would stop doing it, or we'd all do it. These differences exist because different societies have evolved around different social circumstances and different values based on that. So the idea of an absolute morality that is universal is laughable.