885 Forum Posts by "TheloniousMONK"
At 1/4/05 04:00 PM, ReiperX wrote: And marijuana is bad because of?
At 1/2/05 10:59 PM, Damien_FLAGG wrote: And, once again, the idea that 'people saw jesus after he died' holds no water. People claim they saw elvis, and Cobain, and Morrison, and Joplin...AFTER they died. That doesn't mean they were resurected by God.
I bet if you stuck a gun in their face they would change that claim.
At 1/1/05 10:41 PM, -poxpower- wrote: blah blah blah
This is not the place for that. If you want to discuss this, make your own, redundant thread. Because as it is, we have all read your fallacious, read bogus, rhetoric.
The Bible states that God existed before man, in times with no Earthly worshipers, so why would man's eradication change that?
At 1/1/05 08:11 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: Now who is more deserving of aid?
My point was both people are in need. As far as I am concerned, there is no such thing as being "more" in need when it comes to large groups of people in situations such as these.
Except they are consistantly late or do not pay their dues all together. At one point they owed nearly $2 billion to the UN. Why should they not pay yet still keep their vote in the General Assembly and in the Security Council.
Grats, but, if you failed to notice, loans are very common among governments.
NATO is a primarliy military organization, one which was created by the US to try and combat the Warsaw PAct of the Cold War. It is outdated and not really needed anymore, if it ever was. The WTO is an institution of American engineering. They created the WB, IMF and GATT which they later replaced with the WTO at the BReton Woods Confrence in the US. WTO is a tool of the US, and when the WTO rules against them occasionally they just ignore it (ie Canadian softwood tariffs).
The IMF is still around today and is about 184 members strong. It is ruled by a board with one member from each nation, quite free from heavy US coercion. The WTO is a seperate entity entirely and not quite the "tool" that you paint it as.
Afganistan seems to be doing well. Their human rights have improved a bit, but its still controlled by drug lords and the Taliban once you leave a major city. The US money and protection doesnt cover the entire nation.
No, you cannot downplay the impact of American money there.
Iraq was actually France that made a really big contribution by forgiving Iraqs huge debt tot them.
First of all, I am not sure how "really big" that debt was. But, more importantly, France was involved in illicit, read illegal, trade agreements with Iraq. Of course, after the world found out, they were not going to press the issue and try to get all the money.
Kosovo NATO just bombed the shit out of the military when they couldnt stand to change the channel. That was by no stretch an American undertaking, most if not all NATO nations were involved.
Try again. The Kosovars were being repressed by the Serbians. The Serbians refused to negotiate, NATO threatened military action, and the Serbians responded by displacing millions of Kosovars and killing tens of thousands of them. NATO then bombed SERBIA, not Kosovo, into submission.
At any rate, that is not the end of the story. Peacekeeping operations are still carried out by NATO to this day, and American money is being poured into peacekeeping and rebuilding. I do recognize all the other NATO members' generous contributions to that cause, but it is still largely American money.
Not really, the only place that would really lose sleep would be Israel because of the $800 million the recieve from America and military aid from the US would mean they would have to cut back on raids on refugee camps.
Sorry, you cannot just ignore reality. Well, I guess you can, but it does not make you right.
At 1/1/05 05:55 PM, Hammurabi3 wrote: let the flaming commence!
You suck.
At 1/1/05 11:35 AM, D2KVirus wrote: Now, if you think ending an epidemic by having it claim the lives of everybody is a good idea, raise your hand. Anyone?
Yup. You are absolutely right! AIDS is Bush's fault. He just REFUSES to do something about when he holds all the power in the world to end AIDS. He needs to be impeached - no, assassinated!!!
Yet they didn't give the most to Band/Live Aid - they were third, behind the UK and Australia. So, a country with just 2m living there gave more money to a charity than one with 200m, and you want to lecture about charity?
First of all, the UK has about sixty million, and Australia has about twenty million.
Secondly, I was not aware the US had to give the most to every cause. Are you forgetting we send them hundreds of millions of dollars in food aid, which we do not attach a monetary value to? The United States gives over half of all the food aid in the world, including over half of the WFP's total giving. Oh yeah, and who is transporting all these goods? American pilots flying US C-130's. Also a good chance they are flying your countries tsunami aid.
Or is it the US just gives money to charities that benefit the US - like all the 9/11 funds set up?
Not sure what you are talking about here. The American people or the US government?
The American people give to causes they believe in. Right now American citizens and business are donating millions of dollars for tsunami. Already their aid tops one hundred million dollars.
The US government gives .13% of their GDP to international development, not including Iraq, Afghanistan, nor international food aid, which values around a billion dollars.
Yet more proof that, when the American people are involved, they really don't give a good goddamn about the interests of anyone else - and revel in insulting them anyway.
How much have YOU given recently? Judge not lest ye be judged, a good way to live.
At 1/1/05 01:29 AM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: Can you not tell me there are not countries in more need of this money than Isreal? Thousands die each die throughout Africa from starvation.
I think it is a bastard thing to say that one group of people in need is greater than another. Furthermore, who the hell attacks a country for GIVING? You people just refuse to be THANKFUL. The US is under no obligation to give any money at all. And without our giving where would the UN and all of its affiliated programs be? Or NATO, WTO, etc? Or how about nations like Liberia, Afghanistan, Kosovo, or espcially Iraq? Without the generous giving of the United States, each of these places and organizations would be FAR worse off or even crippled. So I challenge you to criticise the generous contributions of the United States again. To do so would be to point out how incredibly thankless you are.
At 12/31/04 09:50 PM, wAcKyEagle wrote: One thing that has given me a little bit of hope back, however, is the pledge of this Administration to multiply by 10 the amount of financial aid it is giving to the Tsunami Relief. The thing that I am still disparaged about is that it took 5 days of constant bitching and emailing to force the Administration to do something significant.
$35 million was all that the US Agency for International Development had left in its emergency funds. They literally cleared themselves out to respond immediately to this tragedy. After that, they had to ask Congress for more money. Congress then approved the $350 million revised contribution. You expect Congress to act in a day if the situation is not absolutely immediate?
Also, just a side note. France has promised $57 million, Britain has pledged $95 million, Sweden is sending $75.5 million and Spain is offering $68 million, although that pledge is partly in loans.
Besides, natural disasters improve economies. The nations affected should be glad.
I got another one. Canadians are envious of Americans.
Oh wait, that is true!
At 12/30/04 05:23 AM, ReiperX wrote: Then they also have to develop a deliver system for them to be a threat to the US. And there is no way the North Korea would nuke the US in the first place because of the retaliation from the attack would be 10x greater.
North Korea has no intention of nuking anyone; to do so would carry with it devastating political ramifications. No one would want to save them from retalliation, and only having one bomb puts them in a weak spot.
No, the only reason why North Korea wants a nuke, or any country for that matter, is to be treated as a power. To tap the full power of nature is the ultimate equalizer in international politics. Once you have the bomb you are treated as a real world player.
As far as Bush's "bullying" of North Korea, it is completely understandable. North Korea, whether they have the actual means or not, made it public that it is continuing their nuclear weapons program. This violates several treaties, agreements, and laws. Bush's foreign policy so far, in regards to nations of the small, oppressive, maniacal variety, has been to not tolerate any purposeful governmental violations of laws. We saw this with Iraq, Iran, Syria, and North Korea.
Now, as far as North Korea's nuclear capabilities, instead of trying to swage you on this matter, I will merely present to you the collected research of many specialists presented by the Nuclear Threat Initiative in regards to North Korea. What you will find is a list of imports/exports including a suspected trade of 32kg of HEU from Kazakstan in 2001. There is also a list of North Korea's nuclear facilities, which I am sure you would find most interesting. Now I will let you reexamine your assertion and make of it what you will.
Big Brother and I had so much fun growing up. We would race down hills on our bikes and wrestle in the dirt. Great times for all. He is three years older than me, though, so he would usually win, but the thrill of it all was just splendid!
At 12/27/04 07:45 PM, N0mbre wrote: The economy is fucked.
Hold onto that cheque until about 2020, or better yet, go back in time.
At 12/27/04 07:13 PM, ProwL wrote: The metaphor is above me? They believed the world was flat, there is no metaphor intended.
Please note that it is also impossible for one to "see all the kingdoms" from any mountainous vantage point on Earth.
At 12/27/04 02:07 AM, ProwL wrote: Mal. 3:6. For I am the Lord; I change not. Num. 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent. (Ezek. 24:14; James 1:17)
Ex. 32:14. And the Lord repented of the evil which he had thought to do unto his people. (Gen. 6:6; Jonah 3:10; Sam. 2:30-31; II Kings 20:1-6; Num. 16:20-35)
Allow me to quote several passages from the book Systematic Theology:
“no change is possible in God, since a change is either for better or for worse. But in God, as the absolute Perfection, improvement and deterioration are both equally impossible… The divine immutability should not be understood as implying immobility, as if there were no movement in God… God is always in action… There is change round about Him, change in the relations of men to Him, but there is no change in His Being, His attributes, His purpose, His motives of action, or His promises…
Ex. 20:13 Thou shalt not commit murder.
Ex. 32:27 Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, put every man his sword by his side...and slay every man his brother...companion..neighbor.(See also 1 Sam. 6:19; 15:2,3; Num. 15:36)
This is a simple one. Do you ever wonder why it does not read thou sahlt not kill? The answer is that there is a distinct difference in definiton. The definition of murder, as defined by Webster, is: To kill unlawfully. Since God is the ultimate judge, he is the one to decide what is lawful and what is not.
Please do not quote the bible on how God isn't good. It's not a fallious argument at ALL. Didn't God make humans in an image of himself?
There is more to us being in God's image that that. But in that sense, God did make man as sinless, in other words in His own image.
Yes thel, the bible is great. Espically when it's bullshit. "MAT 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them." Oh.. how interesting.. it's funny how the devil.. with the spherical shape of the earth could see all of the land from a high mountain?
I guess metaphor is a little above you.
and I guess that would be possible because it would make Heisenberg's uncertainy principal possible for HIM to know where the position of electrons are.. but seriously.. it's such a quantum leap. No pun intended. :)
I am not sure what your point is with the Uncertainty Principle. If God created the universe, read created and set all quantum objects in motion, then he knew all the original positions and velocities of them, thereby allowing him to know the position and velocity of all said objects at any point in time. But God also intervenes...
At 12/26/04 09:36 PM, FeatherSnake wrote: Do you mean organizations like WHO and UNESCO? These are parts of the UN, Un doesn't belong to them. (Sorry if I misunderstood you)
I said the United States belongs to the forty-three international organizations, not the United Nations.
At 12/26/04 08:47 PM, FeatherSnake wrote: I don't like USA either, of several reasons, some of them you listed above, but the most them are because of the way they appear outside of their country, for example with the war on terror. UN is losing power, and instead of weakening it, they should help to improve it.
The United States belongs to some forty-three internation organizations last time I checked. They are the largest contributor of funds to most of them, including the UN.
And I don't like how they blow up bagatelles, like the one with CBS getting fined with 550 000 dollars for showing Janet Jacksons boots!
Yeah, pretty stupid, but it is not like CBS cannot afford it.
At 12/26/04 03:47 PM, LOLLERSKEITER wrote: -The US goverment doesn't only accept the immoral actions of giant corporations like eXXon and Nike, but it also encourages them, and raises the leaders to high positions, for example, Dick Chaney. And also the goverment helps to put down all opositing force, with the help of FCC.
Dick Cheney, with George Bush, was elected by the people, not the US government. Try again.
-The leaders blandantly abuse religion, and openly attack another religion. How is that different from the Theocraism in middle east?
What do you mean by abuse religion? The only instance of abused religion I see are Islamo-Fascists who spin the Qur'an and send thousands of men, women, and children to suicide attacks.
-The peoples ignorance. 20% of americans think that the sun orbits earth.
Trust me... no one believes that, and you made that up.
They fucking voted Swarchenger(sp?) as governor.They actually voted Reagan as precident. They believe that some of the 9/11 hijackers were from Iraq.
You are opposed to these people for what reason? Reagan led the United States into the largest peace time expansion ever seen on Earth. As for Schwarzenegger, we will have to wait and see.
-Declaring the country as the 'free world', chanting 'we're number one', declaring the war on terror. Shez, how idiotic can you get.
I imagine you think your nation is "number one." Well, at least we have the statistics to back us up.
-Getting pissed off at France for not supporting the war. If you're going to hate france, do it for the right reasons. How about centuries of colonalism and nowerdays human rights infrigments. But don't forget, the whole independance of America was inspired by the french revolution.
The French Revolution began in 1789... The American Revolution ended in 1783.
And as far as being angry at France, they were doing secret dealings with Saddam for illicit oil trade. To top that off, the French government was selling Saddam weapons up until 2003 and the French were manufatoring Iraq's Air Force. Up until the war, France was Iraq's largest supplier of military equipment.
So, it is fair to be mad at France for undermining the Iraq war because of illegal business ties.
At 12/26/04 02:19 PM, ProwL wrote: David Hume stated, “If the evil in the world is intended by God he is not good. If it violates his intentions he is not almighty. God can't be both almighty and good.”
I was hoping to avoid opening another can of worms, but... This is a fallacious argument. Evil nor good in the world are God's intentions. God's intentions, as defined in The Bible, are a people of free will. He longs for their love and worship, but he is not about to interfere with their freedom to choose.
But hey, "No one can prove an unrestricted negative" is the reply usually given to those who claim that science can prove that God does not exist. An unrestricted negative is a claim to the effect that something doesn't exist anywhere. Since no one can exhaustively examine every place in the universe, the reply goes, no one can conclusively establish the non-existence of anything.
Right, but more importantly, God does not exist in our universe. The mechanical model of our universe does not support the inhabitancy of an infinite being. Therefore, if God does exist, as defined by The Bible, then he exists outside of nature.
So lets just stop this pointless argument about God-- because I will never have enough proof.
This is an exercise in dialectics; you are just way too emotional.
At 12/25/04 01:57 PM, shadowmoses_sol wrote: barack obauma and hilary clinton... seemingly unstoppable.... and the republicans?
Any ticket with Hilary Clinton on it will never win. Hilary is incredibly far left, has an annoying voice, and has an association with her husband, whom carries with him a past. Plus, just the fact that she is a woman will turn a lot of people off, as sad as it is.
Barack Obama will have to wait until '12 or '16. He is too young for '08 and, as a member of the Senate he will have a tough time looking food (senators always get screwed when they run for President because they have a clear voting record) .
well it wont matter for them cause there is no way theyll get 12 consecutive years....
How much do you want to bet?
At 12/24/04 10:23 AM, D2KVirus wrote: It's that time of year. Blair flew over there a couple of weeks ago (before his annual trip to Egypt until Parliament is recalled - by the way, he only attended 6% of all votes in Commons, how effective a leader he is), the WWE are over there now, so why not Rumsfeld - especially as he needs the good PR as he couldn't be bothered to sign a few letters to the parents of dead soldiers this past week?
Rumsfeld hardly needs good publicity. His job is not at stake. These are his troops. Like many great leaders in history, he is seeking to take care of them, no matter their present condition. And this is a huge deal for these men out there. Everywhere he goes he is met with huge applause and appreciation. So, even if you remain doubtful of his good intentions, bear in mind this is a huge deal to the troops. So what is there to complain about?
At 12/22/04 08:55 PM, -poxpower- wrote: I don't really see how you can disrespect someone's religion and not them.
What? Of course you can respect someone you disagree with.
At 12/21/04 10:40 PM, CaptainBlue wrote: Also, for people saying the Universe can't come from nothing without God, I believe it's called a "Random Quantum Fluctuation of Nothing" or something like that. From what I understand, science is discovering it is a possibility.
Yes, these are more commonly called quantum jitters. The problem here is that these exist at levels far below the Planck length. Also, they are near instantly canceled out. The only time they are observable is when they are detected as radiation from a black hole, where one "particle" of the jitter is sucked into the black hole and the other is rapidly expelled.
much of it was borrowed from other religions,
No.
it has not been absolutely proven that an historical Jesus even existed
Actually, yes. It is widely believe Jesus was a real person who did everything that is written in The Bible, minus certain subtleties and miracles.
and the books of the Bible were written about various gods, and only appear in the same volume because there was a vote about which books should be kept and which should not.
No, that is not necessarily true. You are referring to the Council of Nicaea, where The Bible, as we know it, was pretty much born. I mean, sure, they COULD have been written about various gods, but just reading the texts yourself lends to a different response.
At 12/21/04 06:42 PM, -poxpower- wrote: you're just rambling. I caught you red-handed, you said "voodoo is silly" and I'm certain that you think the same of all other religions you don't believe in, which makes you a hypocrite.
1) That is hardly grounds to call anyone a hypocrite.
2) He obviously does not respect other religions - nor should he have to - but he still respects other people, including you. There is no fault in what he has said.
At 12/16/04 06:32 PM, NotYouZ wrote: Besides, why would we protest HIM if it wasn't for his policies?
Because he had an adulterous afair in the White House? Ba-zing!
At 12/9/04 11:07 PM, -poxpower- wrote: oh yeah I know, "one actualy means 10 and that's a metaphor for 7, which might be a metaphor for 20 000 which we think might be interpreted as 23, which is the roman number for sex, which we know is the number 69, the number that can be reversed, hence they really meant 1111. So when they say "10" they might in fact refer to any number smaller than infinity, and science shows that the great flood happened like 12 000 years ago, HENCE THE BIBLE IS ABSOLUTE TRUTH OMG"
Stop being so mad because I got a "PWN point."
Oh yeah, one more thing. What is more likely, everyone around you is a tard or you are? OMG OCCAM'S RAZOR!!!!!
Hahahaha.
At 12/9/04 10:27 PM, The_Darklands wrote: Also you say that certain parts are methaphoric why not the rest. It could be one huge metaphor with no heaven or hell (they could be internal guilt and praise or social guilt and praise, etc.)
I referred specifically to passages that contain numerical values, as they do not change the entire concept of Christianity, rather just the way and how these things happened.
Hello, brothers!
I was invited to come check out the Church by CapnJack, and I am very excited to be able to be a part of this.
If you would like to know some stuff about me, I am glad to share. I am very interested in the pure sciences, particularly physics and astronomy. I am not a fundamentalist by any means; I am more inclined to believe much of The Bible, while being God's word, is not absolute. Should this create controversy, I am willing to explain further, and if necessary, stop talking about it or leave.
Nevertheless, I am glad to be here and offer you all some food for thought. Famous Atheist Now Believes in God
At 12/9/04 09:19 PM, -poxpower- wrote: blah blah blah garbage and more garbage
It is impossible to argue with someone who is ignorant, like you. But that is okay, because it makes you happy, right?
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=315976 Food for thought.
At 12/8/04 04:15 AM, -poxpower- wrote: god you suck at reading.
I like how all I did was restate the first thing you said verbatim.
it simply says: the most simple answer than can answer to all observations is the most likely one.
Congratulations. You have fallen into the misconception I tried to save you from. I am pretty sure there is no hope for you now.
how the fuck hard is that to get? Nowhere does it say the most likely answer is the right one, but the best one to use to prove other theories because its less complicates o.o
Those were your words.
you say I'm a moron for googling is, yet that sentence is an EXACT extract from the first site you get when you use Google o.O
And you know what? That exact same sentence is what they use in textbooks, too! I wonder why...
Man are you arrogant.
Maybe I should be banned, because I know what I am talking about, and you obviously do not.
as far as I know, you only apply it to theories, as since theories are never facts or 100% true, well I doubt you can prove shit with Occam's razor, but you can surely show that you need not a complicated model.
No one really "applies" Occam's razor to anything. It is only an ideal good scientists try to keep in mind to remove bias from their conclusions.
and I showed you that you use over-complicated models in which you blindly put faith.
And we already agreed I never mentioned faith once. I can see already this whole Occam's razor thing has changed your life. I am glad I could have such an impact on you, but I am sorry that you could not figure it out.
Shit and you're the tard who's going on about how I'm retarded. At least I'm not extremely arrogant as you are o.O
I have never said you are retarded, in fact, I think you are the one who has been saying that about me. Now who is "flaming without provocation?" Double standard?
thanks for the reading material, but I see that you think you know what I was talking about yet actualy have no clue.
I know what you are talking about, but you do not understand what I am talking about. These books should help you.
Think about it. We are constantly finding out about the Universe's laws and it becomes more and more obvious that it could have evolved on its own from the big bang. So adding a God after the creation is just adding an extra element that doesn't explain anything that couldn't be explained with the laws of the universe :o
No, because science will most likely never be able to explain where all the matter and energy came from. And, by the way, it is still impossible for the universe to have always been, and it will be that way forever. Sorry.
reply if you want, but at least be civil and not an ass just because you think reading makes you instantly smarter.
Haha. I am the one being civil, not you. Of course reading does not make me smarter, but it does make me more knowledgeable, which is why you lost this debate.
