At 7/14/09 05:18 AM, bdash1990 wrote: You lib's want everyone to say that all cultures are good, no matter what they do to their people.

the muslims

Well seeing as Muslims are the ones who are mostly being mistreated in Muslim countries, that argument is flawed from the start. Also, liberals do not say that all cultures are good, just that they deserve to be treated with common human decency.

and you tell people that judging people is wrong.
EVERYONE JUDGES. It is human nature to judge.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you are Christian. Remember this: Matthew 7:1-3 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged." We do not say that it is wrong to judge, just that the way the vast majority of Conservatives judge is hypocritical.

Why do you want people to disregard their own nature?

Do you not see the hypocrisy in that statement? You, as a Conservative, identify politically with a group of people that seeks sexual repression of teenagers and homosexuals and will not budge on either of those issues.

because you seek to control every aspect of our lives.

No, we are actually on the side of personal freedom, for example: gay marriage, pro-choice, etc.

If I had to pick, I would pick the Atheist's wager because it makes for a better world.

At 7/2/09 02:00 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 7/1/09 11:35 PM, CBP wrote:

not the text of the bible, during the Middle Ages many manipulated the Church, but that was all fixed in the 2nd Vatican Council in the sixties.

What do you mean, "all fixed"?
Last I heard, boy-fucking is still rampant and they're running around telling Africans that condoms don't work.

I said that the papal infallibility as well as a few other things were fixed. The pope should retract his statement about condoms, but pedophilia is not rampant.

Not all of them, but a few yes.

How can popes THEN be bad, but NOW be the representative of God? How exactly are YOU qualified to evaluate this subject?

I never said they were all bad before the 2nd Vatican Council, just like I never said they were all good after. Unless you're going to pull out some sort of theology degree (doubtful) then I am exactly as qualified as you, if not more so as I have spent time researching Catholicism both in religious education and independently.

We do that as well, we just also ask others to pray for us, and some of them happen to be dead.

Why would you need to ask more than one, ever?
God is the one who'll answer all prayers anyway.
Praying to anyone BUT God is evidently nothing but polytheism repackaged and completely useless if you follow any description of God that religious people will give you.

Some people choose to interpret it that way.

I neither know nor care about them.

You don't care about the 8 animals spirits? ( mantis, tiger, zebra, triceratops, shark, gremlin, horse, beetle )
Well you can't go to Zarban if you don't align your chookahs with the spirits :O Only through the Beastmaster will your spirit-avatar be saved from the torments of Karkos mountain.

Wait this probably sounds fucking retarded to you because you're closed-minded. If only you'd open your mind and allow for more possibilities than your own point of view!

Yeah, isn't it annoying when people are so convinced that they're way is the only way?

I would just like to point out that I only posted on this to clear up some misconceptions about Catholicism for Liger. I am not trying to force my views on anybody, and maybe you should ask yourself this: Why am I so insecure with my own beliefs that I must attack the beliefs of others?

At 7/1/09 07:05 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 7/1/09 06:49 PM, CBP wrote:

Very few Catholics actually consider the pope truly infallible, almost all of us are aware that papal infallibility was just a way for the old Church to control people by saying that the leader can do no wrong. We do believe that he is a very holy man, and that he is as close to God as a living human can

Ok so in case you hadn't realized what you just wrote: you believe that the POPE, the closest thing to God on earth, manipulated the body of the church and the text of the bible to expand his power.

not the text of the bible, during the Middle Ages many manipulated the Church, but that was all fixed in the 2nd Vatican Council in the sixties.

But let me guess, he doesn't do that anymore, right? It's always all the OTHER popes, those were the bad popes.

Not all of them, but a few yes.

I assume you are a Protestant, so think about this: if you are sick, or need help with something do you not want for people to pray for you?

His point is: why not pray directly to God?

We do that as well, we just also ask others to pray for us, and some of them happen to be dead.

All humans are born with original sin

And don't forget the 8 eternal animal spirits.

I neither know nor care about them.

At 7/1/09 06:57 PM, onescarydude wrote:

At 7/1/09 06:49 PM, CBP wrote:
All humans are born with original sin, and nobody is disputing the current condition of the saints.

You BELIEVE all humans are born with original sin. How can an innocent child, who has yet to perform an act in this world have sinned? Because Eve supposedly ate an apple that she wasn't supposed to? So all humanity is doomed for eternity because of one woman's stupidity is what I'm seeing here.

If that is what you see then so be it, but just so we're clear, humanity is not doomed, that's what the whole Messiah thing is all about.

Different people have different beliefs, what's been said here in essence is:
"I don't believe it."
"Well I do, so your belief is wrong."

He said something untrue about Catholicism so I corrected him. The only beliefs of his I said were wrong were the falsities he stated about my denomination.

I'm a Wiccan, does that automatically make me satanic? Does that mean i'm going to go to hell?

I'm really not the person to ask, you should see a priest.

At 7/1/09 02:13 PM, liger91 wrote: There are a few tennets of Catholicism that I find hard to believe.

Oh, do please go on.

One is that of papal infallibility. On the surface, there's a reasonable explanation for this. Catholics seem to view the pope as a kind of "window to God," similar to the "third eye" of Hinduism. But how can a Catholic say "Nobody's perfect" when they believe that this one old man of God is, and that he holds all the answers to their problems and those of the world?

Very few Catholics actually consider the pope truly infallible, almost all of us are aware that papal infallibility was just a way for the old Church to control people by saying that the leader can do no wrong. We do believe that he is a very holy man, and that he is as close to God as a living human can be.

Secondly, there's the Catholic veneration of saints. At least one Catholic I know prays to "Saint Anthony" to help her find things and has told other people about this supposedly "helpfful" phrase. The prayer is as follows: "Dear Saint Anthony, please come around. Something's been lost and needs to be found." You say that three times and whatever you've lost, you'll supposedly find. That's the idea. Assenine, ain't it? "There's no place like home. There's no place like home. There's no place like home." Bah!

I assume you are a Protestant, so think about this: if you are sick, or need help with something do you not want for people to pray for you? That is the whole idea about saints, the only difference is that we as both the living and those who now live with God to pray for us.

Lastly, there's all the dogma, which I don't know much about, but let me just say this: Babies aren't born sinners. And I think saints are dead, by the way. They may have done great things in their respective lifetimes, but they're dead now and can't help you or anyone else. What do all of you think?

All humans are born with original sin, and nobody is disputing the current condition of the saints.

Just another anti-Obama nut, grasping at straws.

Anybody who molests a child deserves every bad thing that happens to them and more.

Aside from the fact that the swine flu started in Mexico, not the U.S.; the biggest problem with that theory is that a pandemic would crash the economy and make people hate the government. More than usual of course.

At 6/7/09 10:50 AM, Ericho wrote: What exactly does a person have to gain from atheism? I keep hearing about bad things people will lose if they don't follow religion (extremism in the world), but there is anything good that an atheist could do that a religious person could do? I mean, by gaining religion you get hope and joy and by losing it, you can lose that (along with extremism, yes I know), but with atheism you have nothing really positive to gain.

I think that Atheists are Atheists for the same reason Muslims are Muslims, Jews are Jews, and Christians are Christians: they think that they are right. As a matter of fact, I am pretty sure that is why anybody follows any system of beliefs.

A wise man once said "History is written by the victor." Every country involved in World War 2 did terrible things at one point or another, but that does not mean that Hitler was an ok guy, that means that he was a terrible person, just like every other dictator ever. No worse, but certainly no better.

So in 27 years we might all die? If only we had a little time.

How long will it take these nutjobs to realize that they are only hurting their own cause?

You seem to think that people either are religious or believe in evolution. The two are not mutually exclusive, I myself believe in God, but also believe in evolution.

Just wanted to set the record straight.

I would like to point something else out about the whole immigrants taking American jobs thing, and that is that when did that start to matter? In this new age of globalization, should we not be worried about jobs for humans as a whole? I for one am not concerned with jobs for Americans nearly as much as jobs for people.

People who think that they are entitled to an American job simply because they were fortunate enough to be born here are the adult equivalent of a spoiled child. So turn off the Lou Dobbs, and start thinking of yourself as a person first, and an American second.

People who go to Hell have rejected God in all his forms. Hell is a state of existence where God is not present, thus its horrible nature. God does not force people to accept him, so He does not call everyone to Heaven to be with Him, because He would be forcing the damned souls to accept Him.

At 5/19/09 04:11 PM, ReiperX wrote:

Basically if this turns out to be a true transitional species it should help squash some of the anti-evolutionists that like to point out that there are no transitional fossils. Not only is this possibly a transitional, but it could be one of the transitional species that lead to human evolution.

I wish. The problem is that at this point they are so dependent on Genesis, they will deny anything. At this point, I doubt that you would persuade every creation/intelligent design proponent on the planet even if Jesus Himself came down and told them.

Even if you could get all their opinions and they all agreed, someone would still use it as an excuse to blow something up. I believe that you should be allowed to make a movie/T.V. show/comedy bit/etc. about almost anything, but then again, I don't control any of those.

The new survey showed that Americans remained deeply divided on the legality of abortion - with 23 percent saying it should be illegal in all circumstances, 22 percent saying it should be legal under any circumstances, and 53 percent saying it should be legal only under certain circumstances.

I found this interesting. Not because of the issue at hand, but because apparently the majority, 53%, are in the center. I don't know whether this means that people are moving toward a more centrist view of at least this issue or not, but that is interesting.

By the way 22+23+53=98. What happened to the other 2%?

Let me make this as clear as I possibly can. Anyone against gays in the military is a homophobe--and by the way if you are offended by that word then just think about all the words for gay people and shut up-- and if I ever build up the courage to do what these brave people try to do but are denied, I don't care if all the guys in my company are the gayest of the gay, wearing rainbow suits and swearing in a lisp, if they are good soldiers I want them watching my back(I know how it sounds, quit snickering).

It's a decent idea, but the problem is that no matter who has a good arguement, or how good that arguement is, you still can't convince true racists. I do agree with your statement about people who make racist jokes but are not actually racist.

At 5/13/09 11:25 PM, EmoNarc wrote: I don't claim to know much about politics. Neither do I claim knowledge of science. And it certainly beats me how a scientific question became political. But the following is a fallacy I've been thinking about for quite some time that -- while I don't claim it to be profound -- has been bothering me: If homosexuality is genetic, then why does homosexuality exist? I mean, those who are homosexual have a huge disadvantage in passing their gay genes to the next generation, so wouldn't after a few generations homosexuality completely disappear? Wouldn't evolution destroy the gay gene?

That is perhaps the only well-thought-out point that homosexuality is not genetic. The problem with that is you can have a gay gene in you and not be gay. For instance, if you have a gene that causes you to develop Parkinson's, you might not get Parkinson's you could just carry the gene. So, in theory, we could all carry the gay gene (assuming it exists) and pass it on to our children.

I am not personally sure whether or not homosexuality is genetic, I haven't seen any evidence one way or the other (not to say that there isn't any, I just never bothered to look it up).

At 5/12/09 11:14 PM, jAk88 wrote: Besides the fact that torture is morally wrong (I don't want to talk about the ethics of torture), I think the case can easily be made for the fact that torture produces results that are unreliable and faulty. Anyone who is innocent of anything can easily become guilty under the threat of torture. They will admit to anything. I'd admit to killing your mother if someone was about to drill holes in my leg.

That's exactly the problem with it. There are ethics issues, but ignoring those, torture, or "enhanced interrogation" is still bad because any evidence obtained through torture is unreliable at best.

I still think you are missing the worst aspect of torture though: torture kills American soldiers. What is happening in the Middle East right now is that people are being captured and tortured, and then their family members go and join the Taliban and kill American soldiers, as well as any other soldier in the area, not to mention the civilian casualties from suicide bombers.

Get "Holy Wars" by Megadeth

Of course. Now that homophobic activists have been tuned out by the American public about gay marriage eventually leading to polygamy they will turn their misguided and ill-informed attention to perpetuating that there is a link between not just gay marriage, but simply acceptance of homosexuals rather than treating them as the bane of all things straight, and the acceptance into our culture of necrophilia.

How long will it be until you ultra-religious zealots stop justifying your baseless xenophobia with abstract logic and futile fear-mongering? Your prejudice against those that pose no threat to you is as incomprehensible as your flawed ideas. It is idiotic to make these connections; for you did indeed make them, until you started to construct this pointless and inaccurate observation there was not even a trace of a hint of any sort of relationship between the acceptance of homosexuality and the acceptance of necrophilia.

At 4/25/09 09:21 PM, ChickenReaper wrote: I believe you have us confused with protestants

Thank you. Although I would like to add that it is only a very small percentage of Protestants that believe this.

At 4/25/09 01:55 AM, wtflolnoob wrote: Now keep in mind that it's 12:30am, and I'm awfully tired. I'll probably regret and compromise what I said in the morning, but please bear with me.

Well then, you shouldn't be talking any more than a drunk should be driving, assuming that you are telling the truth and are not as I suspect a racist meth-head who happened across a computer.

Yes, you heard me. The United States needs to implement a ban on Catholicism, for the following reasons;

1.) Hate speech. Catholic christians believe that if you do not worship Jesus, that your soul will be erased. They say this constantly, as a scare tactic, to get converts into their cult. And a psychologically tainted religion it is, worshiping something that has had very little proof.

We do not believe that if you don't worship Jesus your soul will be "erased". In fact, a growing number of Catholics, myself included, believe that all you have to do is be a decent moral individual and you will spend eternity in Heaven. Even the ones who believe that non-Catholics go to Hell (a small amount, mind you) do not say it constantly, and we do not evangelize much, if ever. As far as worshiping something that has very little proof goes, that is true of every single religion that has ever existed.

2.) Attempting to overthrow government. We all know how they think "god hates fags", and "sinners burn in hell", but all of that seems to be drastically compromising the critical ideas in society. Such as banning gay marriage, which would only make sense to a catholic/other variety of christian.

God hates fags and sinners burn in hell are sayings of the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas, which has been labeled as a hate group and is despised by Catholics. As far as banning gay marriage goes, that is an old Catholic idea, and the new Catholics such as myself believe that gay marriage should be legalized.

3.) Bullshit. Catholics drag you on and on in debate with pop-psychobabble, and never let go of idealistic childish loops. The loop:

" "God hates sinners"

No He doesn't, and no Catholic I have ever met says that He does.

"how do I have proof?"

There is no proof of God, because belief in God is completely based on faith and if there is proof you do not have faith, you simply have knowledge. Even if there was proof of God, He loves all people and hates no person who has ever lived, is alive, or will ever live.

"because jesus loves you and he died for your sins and I'm praying for you"

That is the first thing you have claimed that Catholics say which is true.

"that's just a glittering generality, without any reason to truly know 100% that you're right."

Right. As I mentioned before, it is all faith based.

"Well there is certainty"

There is certainty, but you have to accept God to feel Him.

"Stop telling yourself something that can't be proven with real world mathematics"

Well then tell us, what do you believe that can be proven with real world mathematics?

"God doesn't like it when you pick on me"

That's not picking on someone, and I don't know anyone who would say that it is.

"I'm not picking on you!" "

True.

And repeat.

So there's my OP, enjoy picking on me for my late night antics. I will debate!

You really need to think things through before you put them out for intelligent people to read them.

The problem with that is that these cycles became obsolete a long time ago. For example, there is a cycle about golden ages. The cycle is that a country will start, develop, reach a golden age, and then be conquered. The United States has been through three golden ages in the past 100 years: the twenties, the fifties, and the late nineties to the about 2007 and we haven't been conquered yet. These cycles are made for a different millennium.

2 things. First, oops. Second, how does this show respect to gays?

I am not skeptical of the predictions, but you do have to remember that every technology is expensive at first. By 2049 it is very possible that we will have these technologies, but because of the obvious demand they will be much too costly for any except the richest of the rich.