15,951 Forum Posts by "aviewaskewed"
Since this was posted in poli, keep it political people. DO NOT BUMP THESE old threads either or I will shut this lickity split. Keep it fun and not a mod headache
At 3/19/14 10:32 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Just for arguments sake, would you buy into the notion dumber people are happier?
Not necessarily. In part because we have to define what is meant by "dumber people". Are we saying dumber then me? Dumber then you? Dumber then the general numbers on an IQ test we agree are the base level of "intelligent"?
Because I know people I would certainly say aren't as smart as me that definitely don't seem to be happier people then I am.
Would you be happier if only your intelligence was that much lower?
Nah, I really don't think so.
At 3/15/14 07:27 PM, Tankdown wrote: Studies like this are simpler to the one about making babies smarter by making them listen to Mozart....
Decent points, but I brought this up because it's something concrete that backs up the anecdotal evidence we all have from dealing with people who believe that something like the Holy Bible is a book of literal truth. The less intelligent one is, the more likely they are to believe the irrational is true. I probably should have gone with that to start because looking back I realized it looks like I'm taking the ridiculous position that only dumb people are religious. I of course don't believe such foolishness. I'm merely stating that there IS a correlation between low intelligence and intense religiosity.
It's how he is proven wrong, not done by a static science. Yes religion gets thing wrong too, but like science it gets things right.
Ok, you aren't actually REFUTING me here, you're just retreating into a misunderstanding of what science does and then vaguely defending religion. Let me try to reframe and get us back on track with your indulgence:
Static science: Doesn't exist. The only thing static in science is the scientific method. Conclusions are only static up to the point that they are proven wrong, if proven wrong, they are tossed and we move on. Also Greek philosophers are not actually scientists, I should have called you out on that one previously. My bad. Now, the POINT I had in this was that if we turn this around to a fundamentalist religious viewpoint (which most definitely IS "static") then you will draw a conclusion, and no matter how wrong the conclusion is proven, it cannot be challenged and it CERTAINLY can't be tossed. Now, again, looking at the two situations, I say AGAIN, and I'd like an actual ANSWER this time: In these two examples, WHO is the obstructionist?
Religion gets things right: What things? I'd like some actual examples. Let's please try to keep this apples to apples, meaning let's keep it to religion correctly pinning correct explanations to phenomenon. Not anything where we make claims based on "faith" and other such things. I provided examples for my claims, you please do the same.
Scientists have wants to be right at all costs and eradicate opposing views.
Some do, sure, they're human after all.
Counting the success of some scientists doesn't exclude the ones who failed.
That's what I said. We celebrate the people who got it wrong for at least TRYING, but when the goal is truth, then you can't hold up people who got it wrong higher then people who did. They told what they THOUGHT was the truth, but it turned out it wasn't. They failed in the quest, so they had to be replaced by the person or persons who got it right.
Religion wants to make sense of the world for a better life.
Not always, no. The Catholic Church leaps to mind.
People have looked to religions and found them.
They've also found great horror, persecution, personal tragedy, and flat out evil. Can't ignore the bad too.
So wait...science is not a establishment?
Nope, science is a MULTI-DISCIPLINARY quest for truth. It's a set of established techniques, methods, and what not. It is NOT an establishment the way religion is. It does NOT function in the same way. If you think it does, you need to do WAY more research before continuing this conversation.
Regardless of it's history, it's philosophy has be challenged. The followers are not going to leave because the "ideology" keeps them there. Scientology has it's own bran of scientific explanations.
No. The. Fuck. It. DOESN'T! It is a SCIENCE FICTION religion, written by a SCIENCE FICTION AUTHOR. It is religion blended with a sci-fi flavor. For you to equate science fiction with science is final proof for me you have no fucking clue what you're talking about and aren't equipped to deal with this conversation.
So the science that argued females being the imperfect version of males?
Pseudo-science, yes. Not real science.
Not all the theories testing for genetic superiority of later generations of the Nazi area?
See above.
Counting only the successes is not a excuse.
I'm counting when the METHOD is actually used, and used properly. There is a clear way to do that. What you have brought up is clearly debunked, pseudo-science. You seem to think that all anyone needs to do to make something "science" is just use the word. Again, you don't know what you're talking about, you're not equipped for this debate.
I know what I am arguing.
No you don't. The more I read, the more convinced I become.
About UFO cults who use science to explain Aliens like this guy who explains how Venus sprouted out of Jupiter and we science should be taken far more serious.
Not science, science fiction as religion.
About China using studies to prove ancient Chinese secrets to be good for you.
Not real science, clearly politically motivated propaganda pieces from a totalitarian government.
About the free market of scientific thinkers who either use science to control or sell bad products. Aromatherapy, homeopathy, herbal medicine, and New age science that explains using Eastern Yoga charka with the scientific method.
I have never, ever ever ever, heard ANY of this crap being sold using the scientific method. Never. In fact the scientific community (read, actual scientists) continually rail against and debunk these modern day snake oil salesmen.
I know what I am arguing.
No, you really don't.
I have to question science as much as religion to make it better.
No, first you have to understand the difference between real science, and pseudo-science. Just because somebody CLAIMS what they're saying is science, doesn't make it science. But since you've already admitted to intellectual laziness, I don't know why I'm surprised by how little you know.
It's understandable these firms want to protect their copyrights and all but...yeah, this is one of those issues Americans don't sleep on and will actually pay attention to so...some big overreaching draconian law won't get it done, politicians and these industries will actually have to put some thinking into it if they want it passed.
And that kids is why it'll never pass. :)
At 3/4/14 07:02 PM, Tankdown wrote: Philosophically you can argue about when either one exists. But who really gives a shit....
The hardliners on both sides clearly.
No idea what that means,
If your not directly quoting the writer, you should state that.
If the answer is yes please do not quote. My laziness should never know my intentions....or else.
Yes, and no to your request. You should lurk this board before posting, you would know that is the standard. If you're too lazy to meet that standard, why post here then?
Religion thought in my eyes are avoidable. I have no problem accepting everyone as wrong. :p
Huh?
Never said there are the same, maybe implied, intended to show the similarities.
You heavily implied that, yes.
Actually it is, Christians will have their faith proven in death,
Or disproven, unfortunately that is a personal revelation that is not shared with the rest of the world later. So again, you are incorrect.
People can change the rules to fit there needs, or create ad hoc explanations.
Gets done all the time, yes
Faith though always have a correct answer.
Um, no. If I have faith that if I handle snakes and my religion will keep them from biting me and I get bit and die...my faith was incorrect.
I was in a rush when typing,
Interesting stuff. I really had nothing to add, just wanted to point out I found it interesting rather then make it look like I completely ignored it.
Psychological evidence lead by religion, whatever or not about the son of god business doesn't matter.
No, psychological evidence is led by the practice of psychology, religion may have been first to the punch in terms of recognizing it (certainly developing ways to exploit it) but it does not follow that because it was first, something else could not have been first instead.
Implying Buddhism....
Or just plain human nature, which Buddhism picks up on. Are you REALLY arguing that religion is somehow CREATING traits of human nature? Or creating human nature itself?
Oh you're nick picking.
No, I'm telling the truth and entering established historical context into the discussion. So sorry if that's inconveniencing you.
The statement is about murder being wrong, despite when it happen,
Murder of another human does not necessarily need religion to codify it as a crime. There are other, more practical reasons a society or tribe will prohibit the killing of it's members by other members (the easiest one being that it renders the society or tribe smaller).
and marriage is a ritual about love.
Lol. Lot's of married people would disagree! But all kidding aside, marriage has NOT nor does it CONTINUE to function SOLELY as a ritual of love. It has very clearly been a contractual arrangement that derives benefits for the parties involved (which gets a little out of hand I personally feel when we talk about arranged marriage).
Speculation, but a key point I want to hit.
It's a pretty informed speculation based on the subjects under discussion and the mechanisms by which they work and what they could be used for and what religion can gain by becoming an authority on them.
Why does religion exist? Historically it was to explain reality and the illusions of the self.
Agreed.
People can abuse anything, the sake of religion was to get it right.
People can I agree. What you're saying is purely speculatory.
I did not say they have the same beliefs, rather beliefs function in the same matter.
Except they don't because in some cases the beliefs are extremely opposed, and the desired outcomes are radically different. I think you have a point that I did read it wrong the first time and so I incorrectly pointed out where you went wrong but...I wasn't incorrect in pointing out that flaws existed.
me not do agreey
There are studies that prove it. I didn't just pull it out of my butt. I'll google up one for you quick:
Science made the same statements in history. Aristotle claims of the four elements, and why things fall to earth for example.
Then when Aristotle was proven wrong we moved on to a more comprehensive understanding. Fundamentalist Christians for example still argue the world was created in 7 days, Adam and Eve are the ancestors of ALL humans, and the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Please tell me who sounds like the obstructionist in this example?
Now I like some good reading material on this one. Accounting for all of history.
I gave you a great example above :)
Science has changed, and changes now because of expression. It wasn't expressed in the past. To quote you, it couldn't bullshit it's way out.
Um, no. Let's stick with Newton and Einstein. Newton gave us a wealth of principals that will still use today about how physics works (gravity, things of that nature). Einstein then comes along, looks at all that and says "hey, this is some great stuff...but I've noticed some flaws...this is what I think happened". When scientists tested these new claims by Einstein they found that they actually worked BETTER and made more SENSE then the prior claims of Newton. Thus Newton was replaced in those areas by Einstein. Science wants to know the truth, even if it must eradicate the old inaccuracy to do it. Religion wants to be right at all costs and eradicate opposing views.
I did say that, with some things in the middle. Religion has changed and so has science, and in history neither wanted to change. Science expresses itself to change now, but not religion.
Science independent of individual scientists has no problem changing. Religion independent of individual believers does. You have to separate the individual from the movement.
People who want to establish power also form a new science like in Scientology. They tend to do a little of both religion and science...so yeah wiggle room.
Scientology is not about science or power. It's about a science fiction writer's pursuit of tax free profits. That's why when you look at the structure of the religion, the more money you spend in it, the better you do.
Plenty of scientific cults existed in history such as the 18th century British scientists who argued American's racial breeding makes them inferior.
That is again, not real science, but psuedo-science. Charlatans claiming to be scientists, do not scientists make.
Or how about Astrology or alchemy, it's persistence with natural forces that have long been proven wrong.
Which is why no serious scientist considers them and they have long been labeled "pseudo-science". Understand what you're arguing before you argue it sir.
At 3/5/14 08:46 PM, Profanity wrote: So being offensive to Muslims and Sikhs by saying "towel heads" as an insult is justifiably bannable?
Yeah.
No. Fuck your double standard.
NG has a loooong history of abhoring racism. Try typing in a certain word that starts with "n" and see what happens. Try smart assing around that consequence and I'll TELL you what happens (actually, I think you can guess)
NG has one of the most liberal forums on the internet. We allow just about every kind of language, except prejudice, racist, or excessively hateful language. Most forums would ban you forever simply for swearing. If you DON'T like the rules YOU agreed to by registering an account and making a post on these boards, I suggest you find a different way to occupy your time, or before that, let Tom know how you feel and see if he agrees with you. The moderators are volunteers, here to enforce the rules that Mr. Fulp has decided he wants his forums governed by.
Discussion in this vein is over. PM the appropriate authorities if you aren't satisfied with this explanation. Further public discussion will result in consequences. Back to the thread.
At 2/28/14 11:28 PM, joshhunsaker wrote: It might not be a "book" but the legal precedent of stuff like Buck v. Bell is easily just as damaging. All in the name of science!
It might not be a "book" but The Crusades, The Inquesition, countless genocides and wars are easily just as damaging. All in the name of religion!
My point? I can cherry pick too.
At 3/1/14 05:06 PM, Tankdown wrote: You're confusing confidence with arrogance.
Easy for me to do I think when I see a lot of the latter from both sides of the debate I feel :).
Nothing wrong with being proud of what you may know. As long as you can accept being wrong.
I agree.
Technically I used the word, not the writer.
Oh, so apply that to yourself then.
I don't remember what words the writer used exactly. Pointless to remember such exact details.
It actually is valid because you were representing to be quoting a source, you need to quote correctly. If you don't use sources correctly and honestly...then I have to question your ability to debate honestly and credibly.
So basically only my grammar is in question.
Nope, bit of a credibility issue starting to crop up now.
I don't get it. What's wrong with details?
Nothing if they serve the point. I didn't think those details did.
Every religion calls every other religion wrong, same with people and organizations.
Something about "two wrongs" and what they don't make is springing to mind.
Calling atheism not a religion doesn't eliminate the same qualities of agnosticism, skepticism, materialism, and belief found in every living person.
No, but I think it's important to remember atheism doesn't work as a catch all, just like there's many different forms of Christianity for example, there's many different forms of atheism and it's important to recognize that.
Yes, yes, yes, as I did not specify enough in that sentence to make that mistake. Extending what I said on faith a person can make either claim "there is no God or god(s)" or "I have no proof for God or god(s)" and hold onto said claim with faith. Whatever or not they are correct is irrelevant.
It can be done with faith...but faith is not proof, faith is not enough to go into a debate or situation where you are trying to prove the correctness of the claim (as both sides attempt to do here). That's my point. You can't PROVE the claim without evidence, faith is not evidence, it does not meet the standards of what we'd consider proof of a claim.
Typo, meant to say without evidence.
Ok then. I would then agree with that statement.
You're describing anything that is superstition as religious.
Um...no? I'm describing what are beliefs in the actual religions I mentioned.
Religion is not all superstition. The two are not the same.
True.
Certain observable evidence if it be psychological still provides a basis of religion that doesn't fit under superstition.
Such as?
Forgiveness to men,
Has nothing necessarily to do with religion.
suffering from wants,
Human nature, no need for a religion.
murder and marriage,
We were killin before we were praying, marriage is more about ways to divy up power and property.
all have a religious background.
Or is it that the religion came in to gain sanction and power by having something to say/do with these aspects of human nature and law? I'd say it's more the latter then the former.
I didn't try to imply of them having the same beliefs. Only that the beliefs function in the same matter.
There's no real difference in that. It' like you're trying to split the hair...without actually splitting it. "they don't have the same beliefs, but they're different beliefs are the same"
I think the problem is most atheists don't want to be associated with religion due to a static understanding of history.
I've found it's more about some the odious, and outdated restrictions and that religion can't pass a logic test. Also it's been shown that intelligence has a direct link to religiosity.
Relating that science has changed over the era while religion has not changed.
Because something that says "this is the truth, the end" isn't going to be allowed to change, no matter how wrong it's ultimately proven.
From what I know both have changed despite prejudice found on both sides.
Noooo, religion has only changed because they couldn't bullshit their way out of it anymore, and there are still pockets arguing even the most improbable claims are absolutely true.
Science has refused to change due to the works of the Greeks up till the 16th century.
Science changes all the time. Not methodology because the methodology works. But there have absolutely been shifts in the scientific world based on new evidence eradicating old theories. Einstein replacing Newton is a perfect example...something that happened well after the 16th century.
Religion has refused to change due to a number of reasons.
Mostly because you can't claim to be "the truth" if you're proven wrong. Start pulling that loose thread, the whole sweater unravels.
Today we express that science has change, and that science expresses change and will change when required.
Yep.
Historically though science has refused to change, and religion has changed too without being expressed too often in today's society.
Ok, this just doesn't work. You can't have it both ways where you say "science has changed, religion hasn't" then just reverse it. That's just completely asinine and wrong.
If I am wrong...
Humans rarely agree. When people don't agree, and/or want to establish power, they form a new religion. Science changes because it is a never ending quest for truth and therefore when and if it gets something wrong, it needs to recognize that, and purge the wrong information in an effort to get to the reality.
I do not see atheism any different from all other religions.
Well, then you would be wrong :)
Rather a shift on universal beliefs on modestly and ontology. It's as if people want to separate themselves from a word associated with what they hate. In a way it's like the word black.
It's not even close...
By all means do not believe in anthropomorphic god. Everyone still believe in a god, or universe or whatever grammar they prefer. Or maybe they think it's all in their head. But those are crazy people. :p
Aaaand again with ending your post with something that is just hogwash...
At 2/24/14 08:57 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: I am saying it is the Human condition and the lack of ethics and morality in Government and society at large that is the problem.
Well, NOW you are more clearly...before you blamed religion with this as the underlying statement. So not a total re-frame but, a bit of one
Rhetorical Dogma is not the path to virtue.
Never claimed anything about whether it's a path to virtue, vice, or nothing at all. I just said your lumping technique was unfair. You are hardly the only one that does it though.
At 2/24/14 11:23 AM, TheMaster wrote: Was expecting another Orton win, but that didn't make it any less shit.
At least The Shield vs The Wyatts was great. Rollins going huge, the announce table spot, Harper's suicide dive, Reigns taking on all three Wyatts. Excellent from start to finish.
Wyatts Shield is match of the year so far. Everyone looked amazing, it was as epic as I expected and well worth the watching. I actually think the Chamber situation may have been done as a way to FINALLY build Bryan to the main event picture realistically and get him that title win he deserves at Mania. God knows the audience fucking hates Batista.
At 2/24/14 02:32 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: Well it's Humans that created and or discovered technology and science and it's Humans that use it. It seems you are trying to place blame on things that do not have thoughts, feeling or have emotion's of their own.
And if we replace the word "science" with the word "religion" then you've actually done much the same thing. Because when you say "religion" as a blanket term, you're lumping in the ones with specific prescriptions against certain acts and ideas, in with those that offer no such things. Christianity is a religion, and it has many "dos" and "dont's" some of the dont's prescribe violence as remedy. But Buddhism is also a religion, and while it does have some "dont's" this is more of a philosophical don't and does not prescribe some kind of violent reprisal.
So while you are indeed correct in saying "science" isn't the issue so much as a misapplication of such, it's also not fair to lump all religions together like their all the same.
At 2/18/14 05:35 PM, Atlas wrote: This thing is usually for the Collab forum. There you can meet musicians, animators, and more to help with this project.
Yeah, this is not appropriate for C & C, you need to look into the collab forum and it's terms of use for this sort of thing. Good luck.
At 2/18/14 05:31 PM, Tankdown wrote: I didn't say I was a expert. I said I was studying. So no need for the rude. In a way I'm super excited you asked. So I can share. :)
You definitely made it sound like you had some expertise so I asked what qualifications you had. Don't see how that's rude, especially when I've been in this section a long time and almost everybody claims to have some "expert" or "secret" knowledge on this subject...and then it turns out it's just more of the same stuff we've heard over and over again lol.
Reading a book on introduction to Confucianism and Taoism and am planning to read more books. In the beginning of the book it mentions a article (I'll get it later) that religion cannot be based on a anthropomorphic god.
Interesting idea. However "can't" isn't a good operative word really since it obviously CAN, because it HAS. So I think the author should have argued it "shouldn't be". You might think I'm arguing semantics but I really feel not so.
Article argues that religion is composed of two main premsises. That religion tells you what reality is "made of" and how you the person "make of" reality.
I think that's a fair description of the basics of why religion is, and what it's for. The rest of it is kind of like window dressing over the two main ideas you mentioned.
Expanding that idea atheism is much the same.
Depends on the form though. Some schools simply reject a deity due to lack of evidence, but do not reject the possibility of such nor of associated ideas (souls, spirits, etc). Then there are the other more hard line schools that say with no evidence, this proves abscence and religion is therefore stupid and destructive. This is one of the problems people have with this topic, they don't seem to understand what atheism actually is, so they wind up trying to describe absolutes and this would be as bad as if I were to say "All Christians use the same Bible and believe exactly the same thing". You have to acknowledge the variants to have meaningful discourse :)
Actually this definitions works against you. As you have no proof of no gods or god.
No no no. You're already making a classic mistake here. When someone says "there is no God or god(s)" that is claim, and they need to prove it, when someone says "there is a God or god(s)" that is a claim, and it needs to be proven. Someone saying "I have no proof for God or god(s). Therefore, I reason such a being or beings probably don't exist" is not a claim per se, it is a statement based on logical reasoning and is not in fact a claim against the existence of such a being in and of itself. That is the fundamental position of most atheists I've found. They don't necessarily DENY the existence of a deity, they simply see no evidence, so reason therefore there probably isn't one.
Still a faith system. Faith is to believe with evidence.
No, it most certainly does not. Faith for a Christian for instance actually means IGNORING the evidence that most of the Bible is impossible, or outright fraudulent, or if accepting that part, still clinging to the notion that it's fundamental idea of one creator God is in fact true. Evidence, proveable, definable evidence is NOT necessary for faith.
The evidence does not say yes or no to the existence.
The evidence points to it being a no for the deities mentioned in basically EVERY religious structure or creed which ascribes some sort of supernatural power to it's founder (like in Buddhism). This is what is meant by "weak atheism" it's someone who says "the absence of evidence, is most likely proof of absence, but I'm open to evidence which suggests otherwise", strong atheism is "the absence of evidence, is proof of absence". Get it now?
Saying that you do not believe due to lack of evidence still favors a lack of evidence made in the argument.
Huh?
Both sides have a faith, one with lack of evidence on part of God's existence, the other on part of lack of evidence against his existence.
Ok, looks like I split the hair too fine there, sorry, my bad. Again, you're not understanding how this works, and your lumping atheists together like they have the EXACT same beliefs throughout (which as I've said would be like dumping all Christians together with no qualifiers). While it is VERY true that a strong atheist is making a claim, like a theist does, a weak atheist is not in fact actually making a claim other then to suggest a conclusion based on their understanding of the evidence.
The rest I really got nothing for. The last sentence is complete hogwash though and I think you know that. I hope so anyway.
At 2/18/14 07:39 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:At 2/18/14 07:18 PM, AxTekk wrote:At 2/17/14 06:19 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: I see this subforum of newgrounds as the underworld of Hades, a grim and gloomy land of shadow, where poor lost souls wander lost in the darkness of t...best fucking post 2014, and it's only februaryThe irony of this post is astounding. The ignorance remarkable.
Please stop responding to the I'm leaving post. By rights I should have deleted it but I decided there was enough other content in it that it wouldn't be very fair to Gary (whether he is leaving, or he comes back) if I did. But it IS against the rules to make them, it IS generating some flames (which I've been deleting because I think it's just shit form and borderline rule breaking to kick a guy in the ass when he's going out the door) so please, please, leave that post along and don't be bumping this topic to reply to it.
:: At 2/18/14 01:28 PM, AxTekk wrote:
Yeah, then I think this is the proper place for this discussion. This is basically the new AHCA thread guiz
I'm sorry, did I miss when you were modded?
Seriously guys, I really do try to be patient and not an asshole (I know for some of you the last couple of days have not borne that out). I've been away, some of you have abused that clearly, the sheriff is back and cracking skulls a bit till we remember what's expected around here. I'm not planning to lock right now since SOME people actually seem to want to debate the specific stuff about the HIV patients...I myself will be looking for a better article since Klown is pretty lousy with sourcing. Thank you Gario for doing the research to bring a link forth on that other AHCA thread, but I don't think it's suitable since it's supposed to be about Obama's response to the website. Might be time for a new more general thread about the health care law then. Now, this topic is about the lousianna hiv patients, a SPECIFIC issue of the law. Debate that, don't and leave this topic, or I can just start deleting posts as the first step, handing out short bans if need be to get this back on track.
Here's the reuters article the time one was summarizing.
Anyone wanting to debate THAT particular issue, stick around and do so. Anybody wanting to talk more generally about the pros and cons of the healthcare law can either make a new topic about it, or I'll put one up so you have the alternative, but I want the general talk out of this one. Thanks and enjoy.
At 2/8/14 08:16 PM, Malachy wrote: It's like Sonic commercials. They're playing everywhere but they don't have many locations
The issue is apparently a situation where some franchise owners don't pay their bills. There was one by my job that closed over that, and one about an hour away in Pennsylvania by a friend of mine that did for same. Never had it but I hear the food is just deep fried shit so...probably why they're not paying their rent.
Ok, so Gary has decided to leave....before we go too much further into piling on him (which would be just as wrong as that "final" post he put up), does ANYONE have anything new to add or feel a need to take up his side? Because if this is just going to be flames and proving what horrible dicks we can be, I think it might be time to consider the thread over.
At 2/17/14 06:19 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: I don't even care enough to respond to aviewhatever's condensed cocktail of progressive talking points, snide hysteria and utter intolerance for other people's views.
Butt hurt is butt hurt. I just read this as you've realized what you said was ill-conceived, ridiculous and indefensible.
At 2/17/14 06:02 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: No I am saying that the Federal reserve is corrupt. This topic needs it's own thread.
If you'd actually be willing to defend your position for once and play by the rules of honest debate, I'd be in support of that.
Next off topic post and the thread is locked.
No more warnings. Back on topic RIGHT NOW.
Um, is this not a thread about the Hiv patients in lousianna? Because I thought it was, not a way to indict or defend the merits of the AHCA or alternatives to such. Back on topic or just stop replying to the thread and let it die please.
At 2/16/14 10:37 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Ya cause a fancy piece of paper means you can do research and understand it all LOL.
It actually usually does, yes. Because I see too many people on this forum pretending they understand something or that they actually have done some worthwhile research...but in reality what it is is they've read or watched some things that agree with their general position. Then you add that they're maybe smarter then friends and family they talk to so these opinions and assertions don't get challenged so by the time they hit NG they suddenly think they have this great insight and intellect. But then it falls right the hell apart when they're actually challenged by people just a bit smarter then they are.
At 2/15/14 06:46 PM, Tankdown wrote: Why do certain radical atheists hate religion in general, and protests they are separate from religious beliefs instead of acknowledging different religious beliefs?
Probably a lot of the same reasons radical theists do the same with their belief: I'm right, I know the truth, I want everyone else to know the truth too!
Comes from a good place, but isn't necessarily applied in a good way.
My studies suggests other religions don't believe in a intellect higher power, yet follow religious rituals and superstitions. Science followed superstitions at points in history and self corrected, as some religions self corrected.
What studies? Let's see them, let's see your credentials while we're at it.
At 2/16/14 02:05 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: Modern science has been around for the last 350 years or so, while human existence has been around for 11,600 years. However, in the last 70 years, science has created a veritable witches' brew of deadly concoctions, ranging from atom-shattering explosive devices, lethal genetic modifications, designer diseases, large quantities of radioactive waste, along with a near 100% recognition that man-made pollution will inevitably destroy the atmosphere and even supposed replication of mini-black holes and strangelets through particle collider experiments.
ZOMG! Some people have badly applied science and used it for awful purposes! Seeing as how this has never ever happened with anything else, surely we must ban science...also the hadron collider has never actually been proven to be dangerous so...it shouldn't be in there with the things that we KNOW for a fact are.
Among these list of specie's killing machinations are events to highlight the soulless inventions attributed to the scientific method, scientody, and scientists in general.
I can go down the list of things that governments and religion have done that are equally heinous if not worse in fact.
Nagasaki, Hiroshima, the infamous Tuskegee syphilis experiments,
All government directed misapplications of science. It's like trying to say that Christianity ordered the atrocities of the inquisition or the worst aspects of the Crusades instead of pointing the blame where it belongs on the Catholic Church who were the directors of both.
the attempts of hypothermia researchers at the University of Minnesota and Victory University's to use Nazi data collected at Dachau, along with the Atlas of Topographical and Applied Human Anatomy which was written with the use of 1,377 humans executed by the Gestapo,
So, because bad guys did terrible things, we aren't allowed to study that research and see if there might at least be SOME benefit in it? You'd rather all of those people have died for nothing more then the madness of some racist shit bags? Really?
and even our own history in America contains 64,000 forced sterilizations on the hands of eugenicist scientists.
Once again leaving out that it is "science" that did it, but that it was specifically directed by specific individuals using the scientific method and the knowledge gained from it to bad ends.
In 3% of humanities existence, science has produce multiple threats to the human race.
Compared to the other 97% in which religion, government, and the planet itself has produced all the rest. You also continue to lump contrasting ideas (government made, funded, and directed weapons tech vs. CERN type knowledge experiments) together inappropriately.
Moreover, the quantity and lethality of these projects appear to be accelerating, appearing at the late 1/5th of modern science's appearance on the world's stage (and we are talking about global dangers here)
What do you propose we do about it then? Because I know what I would do but...I'd like to see if we are even close to a similar page here.
Now, in defense of science, I do not dispute that science has brought us good things, such as an increased life expectancy, childbirth survival rates, electricity and energy. But those 4 things, according to scientists, attribute to our eventual death as a species, overpopulation and man made climate change, of which there is a 99% consensus among the scientific community as being true. So are these good things really good after all if they threaten our species as a whole?
Overpopulation isn't entirely about life expectancy going up, it's also overbreeding in certain parts of the world which is really the bigger contributor then better medical tech. Electricity should not be lumped with the burning of fossil fuels or use of chemicals like CFC's, DDT, TEL, or any of the other harmful toxins we've dumped into the environment. Electricity wasn't INVENTED, it was DISCOVERED and HARNESSED. Big difference.
I do not dispute that science has achieved some good things, but I find it an inherently illogical defense, as science has also produced weapons that will wipe out humanity from the Earth, leaving no person to enjoy the benefits of science.
I can do this with religion, government, anything else really that's a human invention and be just as patently wrong because I'm trying to turn a complex issue into a simple black and white issue when it isn't.
In closing, here are two famed scientists who hold chagrin for their inventions. Alfred Nobel, whose dynamite cost him his brother's life and branded him the "merchant of death", and Albert Einstein himself,
"I made on mistake in my life when I signed that letter to President Roosevelt advocating that the atomic bomb should be built."
At least they are admitting their mistakes. Never heard much from the governments who used these weapons or and I surely have not heard apologies from the Catholic Church for protecting all those pedophiles.
I don't ever forsee one party rule becoming the norm, if anything I see something similar to what happened to the Wig party possibly taking effect if the Republican party continues down it's current course (internal strife and being out of touch with the average voter leads to disintegration and a new party forms from the wreckage). But that is massively different then the Dems seizing all the power. Plus gerrymandering has helped keep quite a few seats in the house and senate in red hands so...there's still enough tricks in both of those old dogs to make one think they'll still be locked in moronic combat for years and years to come.
At 2/14/14 10:27 PM, Warforger wrote: Wait wait, a clause of the original Constitution with no amendments, is an amendment to you. So basically, anything you don't like is illegal?
In fairness, I THINK the issue is he isn't understanding the WHY and the clear INTENT of such a clause (that the founders knew they needed a certain elasticity and flexibility in the document since they were trying to craft something that would last forever and guide this country forever and since they weren't able to forsee every problem in "forever" they would need a way for future leaders to edit the government in such a way that it could handle that). Well, that and leanlifter seems to not trust any government simply because it is government so therefore anything that doesn't black and white say what their powers are and aren't, it's automatically bad and going to be used in a nefarious way. That's my take anyway, I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong.
At 2/13/14 07:04 PM, Camarohusky wrote: So, far too often other threads get derailed on the subject of the Constitution.
Here's an official thread to discuss Constitutional issues, incuding interpretation, scope, as well as specific arguments.
This should help keep the other threads clean.
First off, the "papa spank" bit:
You are NOT a moderator! You are NOT to be making "official" topics. We didn't empower you to do that, you didn't ask for my permission, and I bet if I check around I'll find you didn't ask any other mods either. Official topics are done by STAFF when STAFF determine there is an issue within a forum (usually this one to be honest) where there is too many threads with similar discussion (see "official" bush, and my own "official" atheism vs. theism). USERS do NOT get to make that determination. We welcome your feedback on such issues (I certainly do anyway), and we are here to make your forum experience better, but we are the law givers, not you. You also do NOT have the right to "move things from other threads" WE decide that. By rights I should be locking this, but I'm not going to.
Second, the "good idea" bit:
The reason I'm not locking this is two fold: 1. I think this is actually a good and useful idea, therefore it gets my back door sanction despite it's illegal and ill-advised creation. 2. You are an otherwise good, and solid user and I am sure we can trust you to be a good caretaker here and alert us if mods are needed to take care of a problem.
This is to serve as notice for both Cam and anyone who might be thinking about going the same route and making this a trend: Don't, it's illegal, it will get deleted and if someone keeps repeatedly doing it you're getting banned under the "backseat modding" rule. I'm making an exception in this ONE and ONLY case because I think this can be a wonderful resource if we all work together to make it so.
Carry on.
At 1/25/14 08:05 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: All in all, great contribution to the discussion, dick.
He really was the epic waste of time I expected him to be and reminds me why I created this thread...we need his kind corralled here instead of shitting the bed of this part of the boards.
At 1/21/14 08:19 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: Or merely expanding on your contribution to the thread.
Given all you said later, I don't really see it that way personally.
As long as you understand that your truth is not the absolute, end-all truth (and yeah, it'd be nice if the religious behaved in a similar fashion) then you're doing great.
There's ALWAYS something more to find. That's why we need to keep looking and never stop. I mean, look at how many biographies and such are done on historical figures like Shakespeare as a for instance...know why we keep having so many over and over? (Besides the endless quest for money and academics justifying themselves) It's because every so often somebody comes out with something we didn't previously know and it adds to our understanding.
Do you think all questions we can ask can be answered?
I don't know. What I do know is if we don't ask them and then try to answer them, then the end result is that no, we will never be able to. The quest for truth and greater understanding is something I think we should always strive for.
People require different thresholds for their answers, especially ones surrounding life/death, spirituality and deity worship.
True, but we have established a framework for how to find, test, and accept those answers.
Breaking people isn't the same as breaking a horse or dog.
Very true, people have higher intelligence and can sometimes be much more stubborn lol.
But if you believe some people don't stand higher than horses or dogs, it's really easy and really simple to treat them similarly. I only bring this up because, again, I took issue with how you portrayed your religiously offensive coworker.
I'm not trying to portray him as lower then somebody. But the fact is, he is not a smart person, he is quite ignorant and that is a result of a variety of factors including (and most importantly I'd say) the personal decision to stay as such and not seek out better learning and opportunities for such.
Hasn't your boss laid down the rules for the guy yet?
He tries, part of the problem is the guy doesn't do it too much right at the work site, usually in the break area so...not a lot can be done there. Bit of a "can't call what I don't see" and that he really doesn't like being the disciplinarian.
Sadly I've also worked with thin-skinned nancy-pants who make mountains out of molehills.
I have about 2 of those right now myself...
I hope your boss is acutely aware of the powderkeg.
He is, we'll see how it plays out though.
But can you see where the logical track takes him? If someone believes that homosexuality is a choice, and they also believe that the act is detrimental to eternal life, then letting someone drown in such a way would violate their moral code.
There's a difference between "let me try to help them" and "they can/do/should die over it". The first is misguided, but well intentioned. The second is callous at best, and something that can lead to acts of hate and violence at the worst. I also fail to see why someone doesn't try to understand the opposing viewpoint of things. Yes, I get we're all deeply set in our core most beliefs but I for one am certainly not opposed to listening to the other side as long as we're having a reasoned and intelligent discussion of such and it isn't just attacks and name calling.
Unless you meant physical murder gays. I don't think you did though.
I alluded to it as a possibility. But I certainly don't believe that in this particular case it's a possibility.
When you came in and called bullshit on cam, it sure looked like you didn't read the fucker.
I did indeed misinterpret what cam said in specific as cam speaking broadly. I also forgot to mention the "god of the gaps" fallacy which probably would have made my point more concise and a heck of a lot shorter too.
I do what I want, haven't I made that clear yet?
K, I guess all I can ask then is if you're going out on that limb, hope you brought a parachute if somebody saws it off :)
And you stick by your belief that worshipping a God makes you automatically persona non grata in the scientific community?
Ah, there's that limb again and here's me with my saw: When and where did I say that? I think what happened here is reading it back I was a little too vague and you took that to mean I was saying "the simple worship of an invisible deity is damaging and only stupid people do that" when what I was saying is "things like Sharia Law and such that result in violence, execution, and persecution of a people don't deserve tolerance and aren't things a civilized society should tolerate". I would also to a lesser extent point to religious objections to the LEGAL institution of gay marriage (granting LEGAL, not religious, equality of marriage I mean) as an instance of an outmoded religious ideal that is hurting modern society and modern people.
At 1/21/14 06:43 AM, DarkOasis wrote:
Proving that a god exists is quite easy,
Then why hasn't it been done conclusively?
as most informed people can see that multitudes of renown scientists agree that,
Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy my son. That's at least two from you in two posts now...not good.
no matter how you slice it, there had to be a being thats boundless, all-powerful, immaterial, and not of our plane of existence to create the universe
That hasn't been proven at all, whatsoever, and without anything behind it, I have to conclude you don't have the required IQ to play in this sandbox.
Proving the God I believe in to somebody else has a variety of difficulty, since we have atheists, cults, eastern hemisphere religions that worship political issues, ways of government , a level of thinking that a clearly imperfect man apparently reached, other believers that have a backwards perception of how living in the grace of God and putting your trust in Him should be, the tens of faiths that just deter ever so slightly from the true teachings with man- made traditions, the list goes on.
There's also the fact that you have NO FUCKING PROOF!!! You don't even know what proof is. Plus if you go around telling people that their perception of having faith in the same deity is you is backwards? Then that just makes you a jerk.
But I think that the best way to reach people like this, is to see where they stand, as I gave where I stood and was methodiclly countered by one of these kind of people.
No, the best way to do that is when you say "I have proof for God!" and they say "that's cool, please do share" and you give them the same logical fallacies of any theist and the same self-righteousness they just tire of you quick and heave a sigh, shake their head and walk on. Kind of like I'm doing.
So please, give your view point in this timeless debate before you nitpick.
Riiight, me asking you to play by the rules of real debate, use words properly (and by that I mean the word must be used in conjunction with it's definition) and not be a jerk to people (so many veiled, not quite ad hominems here) is "nitpicking". If you found playing this game is a bit too hard for you, I suggest you bid us g'day and find an easier one to play.
