Erollisi Marr - The Nameless

Go Back   Erollisi Marr - The Nameless > NON EQ Stuff (Real life, other games, etc.) > Steam Vent


Reply
 
Add/Share Add/Share Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-07-2009, 05:58 PM   #26
AjTaliesen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,516
By the way: the odds are probably several hundred billion to one that I might choose to think of a green rhinoscerous fucking a blue monkey right now. Of all the thoughts possible in the universe, it's very unlikely that an individual might choose this one with no motivation leading to it. Unlikely, but obviously not impossible.

It's unlikeliness has no bearing at all on the fact that it happened.


That the astronomically unlikely occurred early in history COULD be an argument of intelligent intervention, and for many Christians who recognize the obviousness of some of the evidence we do have available: it is. It does not in ANY way make someone somehow less faithful to believe God capable of making the unlikely happen. If anything, believing the unlikely to be impossible is more of an indication of lack of faith.
AjTaliesen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2009, 06:46 PM   #27
Heretic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,762
Originally Posted by axgar
Look at America when people held God closer to their hearts and followed the rules so to speak compared to now
People did fucked up shit back then too. Its just the human condition, religion or no religion.


Originally Posted by axgar
half of them are lazy (mostly liberals) and the other half are just trying to fucking make a living without the government fucking with them constantly........ libbies dont want that though because the welfare check might be cut off to those that could actually work
People too lazy to work should get NO welfare. Any help should be for people out there trying hard to make a living with low wages.


Originally Posted by lurikeen
I think Axgar is onto something. Take God and faith out of "the picture", then we seem to be left with animalistic self-gratification.
As long as they aren't stepping on the freedom of others, YES! I think Christians and agnostics alike can agree we only get one life on this planet. It is of the UPMOST IMPORTANCE people have the freedom to live that life the way they choose.


Originally Posted by lurikeen
why shouldn't I be able to create a society where I can "leverage" others to satisfy all MY desires no matter how selfish?
Like the government does to its citizens? :P


Originally Posted by lurikeen
why shouldn't I be able to create a society where I can "leverage" others to satisfy all MY desires no matter how selfish?
If you need a God to give you morality to 'stay in line', then you had no morals to begin with.


Originally Posted by ajtaliesen
Well, the Big bang is actually originally a religious philosophy, since a big bang implies a big banger
que?


Originally Posted by ajtaliesen
Secondly quite a few Christians have recognized that while there are gaps in some of evolutionary theory, the fact that animals DO evolve is so full of obvious proof that it's actually ludicrous to deny that it exists on some level, even if you believe that the process was initiated by and even guided by a higher power.
Even I agree that natural selection doesn't seem to account for everything we see in animals.
__________________
bg85 on another forum:
"i always refer to myself as a "missionary agnostic." that is, not only do i not know shit about shit, but i'm going to try and convince you that you don't know shit about shit either and there's no way for you to know shit about shit."

Heretic
Heretic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2009, 07:22 PM   #28
Lurikeen
Freaky
 
Lurikeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 17,873
Originally Posted by AjTaliesen View Post
It's unlikeliness has no bearing at all on the fact that it happened.
I used to pose that argument all the time, but the fatal problem with it is it begs the question regarding fact. We actually have good guesses about the conditions that might have brought life, but we don't actually know for a fact what the drivers were.

Originally Posted by AjTaliesen View Post
That the astronomically unlikely occurred early in history COULD be an argument of intelligent intervention, and for many Christians who recognize the obviousness of some of the evidence we do have available: it is. It does not in ANY way make someone somehow less faithful to believe God capable of making the unlikely happen. If anything, believing the unlikely to be impossible is more of an indication of lack of faith.
This is a good point, but actually says more than the point I was making. For somebody to argue that the theist is essentially "wacked out" because they believe God is creator and science provides a better explanation for the orgins of the universe is simply ludicrous. The Big Bang theory is probably a good explanation, but it can't tell us what caused the singularity that expanded. It takes a great deal of faith to accept the idea that matter simply appeared ex nihilio without a cause. Don't get me wrong, I can fully appreciate faith these days, but I think those who would knock theists for believing God is the cause of the universe on rationalistic grounds really have no better footing, since they too are dabbling in metaphysics.

Originally Posted by AjTaliesen View Post
Well, the Big bang is actually originally a religious philosophy, since a big bang implies a big banger.
I think you may be thinking of Georges Lemaître who was a Catholic priest and a physicist who presented his theory of an expanding universe versus the popular steady state theory of the day (1930s or so). Lemaître didn't teach religious philosophy as far as I know, but could have; however, his view of an expanding universe, which brought us the "Big Bang" theory was not actually based in religious philosophy, but in mathmatics and physical theory.

Originally Posted by Heretic View Post
If you need a God to give you morality to 'stay in line', then you had no morals to begin with.
Talk of need for morals is a red herring in this case. The point is that if there is no God, then why not live like hell? If we are merely animals following the crowd who tells us what morals should be, then why not do what Nietsche once argued and become a law unto ourselves and create morals in our own "image"? Why not? Because we can't, since we have a conscience; and evolution doesn't explain that thing we call a conscience just as the idea that morals are a social construct do not, too. We have morals because God created us with them. (Edit: Btw, I know I can't prove that last statement to the skeptic's satisfaction.)
__________________
"All I said was... that bit of halibut is good enough for Jehovah." —Monty Python's "Life of Brian"

Last edited by Lurikeen; 09-07-2009 at 07:35 PM.
Lurikeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2009, 10:25 PM   #29
AjTaliesen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,516
Originally Posted by Lurikeen View Post
This is a good point, but actually says more than the point I was making. For somebody to argue that the theist is essentially "wacked out" because they believe God is creator and science provides a better explanation for the orgins of the universe is simply ludicrous. The Big Bang theory is probably a good explanation, but it can't tell us what caused the singularity that expanded. It takes a great deal of faith to accept the idea that matter simply appeared ex nihilio without a cause. Don't get me wrong, I can fully appreciate faith these days, but I think those who would knock theists for believing God is the cause of the universe on rationalistic grounds really have no better footing, since they too are dabbling in metaphysics.
Couple of things here. First, I get the feeling we're agreeing. Secondly, I think you're arguing with someone else...not sure if there's a word for this or not, but essentially it's that you were having another argument at some point, then I came along, and got saddled with things that someone else said, without having said them myself. I never said belief in a creator was whacked out. I wouldn't say that, since I don't believe it. I DO believe that literal interpretation of a book that specifically instructs the reader not to take it literally is a bit whacked out, but that may be a whole different argument.

Originally Posted by Lurikeen View Post
I think you may be thinking of Georges Lemaître who was a Catholic priest and a physicist who presented his theory of an expanding universe versus the popular steady state theory of the day (1930s or so). Lemaître didn't teach religious philosophy as far as I know, but could have; however, his view of an expanding universe, which brought us the "Big Bang" theory was not actually based in religious philosophy, but in mathmatics and physical theory.
In part. But you have to also remember that the contradiction of steady state was itself religiously motivated: the notion that it wasn't all just there, that at some point it had to be set into motion. Although often left out of the theory, the theory itself cannot work without stopping to think that "something" set it into motion. Adding to that the time period: to a Newtonian thinker motion is caused by interaction and it's preserved, which means that if you ascribe to a 'big bang' then you basically accept that pretty much everything that happened since was all result. It cannot work, at least according to newtonian, without a cause.


Originally Posted by Lurikeen View Post
Talk of need for morals is a red herring in this case. The point is that if there is no God, then why not live like hell? If we are merely animals following the crowd who tells us what morals should be, then why not do what Nietsche once argued and become a law unto ourselves and create morals in our own "image"? Why not? Because we can't, since we have a conscience; and evolution doesn't explain that thing we call a conscience just as the idea that morals are a social construct do not, too. We have morals because God created us with them. (Edit: Btw, I know I can't prove that last statement to the skeptic's satisfaction.)
Possibly. I believe we have choice because God endowed us with it. We also have the ability and responsibility to learn. Even if the only book you ever read is the bible you have to accept that our understanding of morality changes as the centuries go by. And if you accept both old and new testament, you have to accept that that change in understanding is supposed to happen and itself, moral.

We DO know that we can learn. We know that a human might hurt other humans, but is less likely to do so once he learns what hurt is and is able to associate that with himself. I don't like being punched. It doesn't feel good. I should act in a way that encourages others not to punch me. Ultimately to the realization that it is even wrong for me to punch others. We also know that allot of this is NOT built in. Religion, teachings, the bible, the concept of morality itself would be uneeded if it were. Only the potential is built in. Beyond that we can assume only that either the information to make the best choice to reach that potential is either given to us, or else the tools to find that information have been given.

So we come back to "whacked out". Allot of us, Christian and atheist believe in both potential and choice. To turn away from the tools and information given, to fail to seek greater understanding is a denial of both the potential and the choice. I think we're supposed to try. Not only that, but I think it's obvious, in BOTH science and religion that the endeavor is the whole point. So in the end I do look down on those, Christian or atheist, who believe it's somehow wrong to try to find a better understanding using ALL of the tools available to us.
AjTaliesen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2009, 10:50 PM   #30
Lurikeen
Freaky
 
Lurikeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 17,873
Originally Posted by AjTaliesen View Post
Couple of things here. First, I get the feeling we're agreeing. Secondly, I think you're arguing with someone else...not sure if there's a word for this or not, but essentially it's that you were having another argument at some point, then I came along, and got saddled with things that someone else said, without having said them myself.
Yep. We are mostly agreeing and no, I am not really arguing more than I was rambling over a point I made earlier in response to something Phal wrote. Thanks for a good exchange.
__________________
"All I said was... that bit of halibut is good enough for Jehovah." —Monty Python's "Life of Brian"
Lurikeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2009, 11:21 PM   #31
Heretic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,762
Originally Posted by lurikeen
The Big Bang theory is probably a good explanation, but it can't tell us what caused the singularity that expanded. It takes a great deal of faith to accept the idea that matter simply appeared ex nihilio without a cause.
And god offers no better explanation. Because something would have created god, and something would have created the thing that created god, etc. Human beings just cannot fathom nothingness or eternity.
__________________
bg85 on another forum:
"i always refer to myself as a "missionary agnostic." that is, not only do i not know shit about shit, but i'm going to try and convince you that you don't know shit about shit either and there's no way for you to know shit about shit."

Heretic
Heretic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2009, 11:23 PM   #32
Axgar
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,028
Send a message via Yahoo to Axgar
Originally Posted by Heretic View Post
And god offers no better explanation. Because something would have created god, and something would have created the thing that created god, etc. Human beings just cannot fathom nothingness or eternity.
called the bible jackass
Axgar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2009, 11:24 PM   #33
Axgar
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,028
Send a message via Yahoo to Axgar
Heretic.......................... people are allowed to fuck up as you call it because God gave us that opportunity.
Axgar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2009, 11:54 PM   #34
Heretic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,762
What? Are you drunk again?
__________________
bg85 on another forum:
"i always refer to myself as a "missionary agnostic." that is, not only do i not know shit about shit, but i'm going to try and convince you that you don't know shit about shit either and there's no way for you to know shit about shit."

Heretic
Heretic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2009, 12:08 AM   #35
Heretic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,762
Back to the original topic....here is a transcript of the Obama speech. Its policy free with even "God bless you, and God bless America" at the end.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/MediaResou...SchoolRemarks/


Here is Laura Bush coming out in support of Obama's speech to students. She just earned my respect.

http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=11088536
__________________
bg85 on another forum:
"i always refer to myself as a "missionary agnostic." that is, not only do i not know shit about shit, but i'm going to try and convince you that you don't know shit about shit either and there's no way for you to know shit about shit."

Heretic
Heretic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2009, 05:27 AM   #36
FafnerMorell
Warrior 4 the working-day
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 4,629
Yep, the standard "Stay in school" - what's interesting is to watch the White House blame the mess on "inarticulate wording" in the initial releases (the whole "Students should write essays on how they plan to help Obama accomplish his goals").
__________________
Fafner Wabbitslayer, Retired Shaman of Reviction, Erollisi Marr/Morell Thule
"This story shall the good man teach his son;...
From this day to the ending of the world,"
-- William Shakespeare, Henvy V, Act 4, Scene 3
FafnerMorell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2009, 07:11 AM   #37
FafnerMorell
Warrior 4 the working-day
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 4,629
Rather than give a link to an Internet new sources (which, as Bumbles has informed us is the most unreliable source of news), I recommend everyone print this out and then glue it in a magazine or newspaper or to their TV screen, making it instantly more reliable:

When Bush spoke to students, Democrats investigated, held hearings

The controversy over President Obama's speech to the nation's schoolchildren will likely be over shortly after Obama speaks today at Wakefield High School in Arlington, Virginia. But when President George H.W. Bush delivered a similar speech on October 1, 1991, from Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington DC, the controversy was just beginning. Democrats, then the majority party in Congress, not only denounced Bush's speech -- they also ordered the General Accounting Office to investigate its production and later summoned top Bush administration officials to Capitol Hill for an extensive hearing on the issue.
(Only the first paragraph is quoted, because the rest might qualify or contradict the initial controversial statement)
__________________
Fafner Wabbitslayer, Retired Shaman of Reviction, Erollisi Marr/Morell Thule
"This story shall the good man teach his son;...
From this day to the ending of the world,"
-- William Shakespeare, Henvy V, Act 4, Scene 3
FafnerMorell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2009, 08:08 AM   #38
Lurikeen
Freaky
 
Lurikeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 17,873
Originally Posted by Heretic View Post
And god offers no better explanation. Because something would have created god, and something would have created the thing that created god, etc. Human beings just cannot fathom nothingness or eternity.
God does offer a better explanation, since by definition God is a being that can be neither created or destroyed. He is a being which can never fail to exist, having no beginning in time. God necessarily exists.

So, no there would not have to be "something [that] would have created God" by definition.
__________________
"All I said was... that bit of halibut is good enough for Jehovah." —Monty Python's "Life of Brian"
Lurikeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2009, 05:58 PM   #39
Heretic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,762
Originally Posted by lurikeen
God does offer a better explanation, since by definition God is a being that can be neither created or destroyed. He is a being which can never fail to exist, having no beginning in time. God necessarily exists.

So, no there would not have to be "something [that] would have created God" by definition.
But of course he needs a beginning, just as the big bang. All it does is pass the buck. Why create a whole new being, that we have no evidence of, that needs a creator....when we already have an explanation, that we have evidence of, that needs a creator?
__________________
bg85 on another forum:
"i always refer to myself as a "missionary agnostic." that is, not only do i not know shit about shit, but i'm going to try and convince you that you don't know shit about shit either and there's no way for you to know shit about shit."

Heretic
Heretic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2009, 06:51 PM   #40
Drysdale
RSS Feed
 
Drysdale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 20,628
Originally Posted by Heretic View Post
But of course he needs a beginning,
Nah. You just can't wrap your mind around eternal. (Neither can I by the way)
__________________
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
-Robert A. Heinlein

"Thou shalt not steal. Except by majority vote." - Gary North
Drysdale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2009, 08:00 PM   #41
Lurikeen
Freaky
 
Lurikeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 17,873
Originally Posted by Heretic View Post
But of course he needs a beginning, just as the big bang.
No, because we are talking about two very different categories of existence. And Drysdale is correct in that we can't wrap our brains around the idea of a being who necessarily exists. We can certainly talk about the concept, but I think it will still be puzzling to us.

Also, I don't think we need to postulate the existence of God in order to explain Big Bang theory, or to make some sense of it. The point is that the Big Bang theory leaves the cause for the singularity that expands into our current universe as an open question. The theory doesn't purport to explain what gave rise to the singularity. We need other theories to do that leg work... which is why I am saying that postulating a necessary being (God) who needs no cause, is the best explanation. Of course, as a Christian I believe it is the only explanation.
__________________
"All I said was... that bit of halibut is good enough for Jehovah." —Monty Python's "Life of Brian"
Lurikeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2009, 10:44 PM   #42
Heretic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,762
Originally Posted by lurikeen
We need other theories to do that leg work... which is why I am saying that postulating a necessary being (God) who needs no cause, is the best explanation.
I agree that it is a possibility. But why is it all of a sudden the best explanation given that we have no existence of gods.
__________________
bg85 on another forum:
"i always refer to myself as a "missionary agnostic." that is, not only do i not know shit about shit, but i'm going to try and convince you that you don't know shit about shit either and there's no way for you to know shit about shit."

Heretic
Heretic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2009, 08:54 AM   #43
bumbleroot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 7,756
Originally Posted by Lurikeen
Your average Bible thumping conservative typically wants to reduce the size and power of government.
Not only have you changed your philosophy, you are now one of the batshit crazies. How the fuck does it reduce government when they tell me I HAVE TO have the 10 commandments on my state house? How is it reducing government when they tell me I can't make a pull-the-plug decision on my relatives? That is the government telling me how to live my life for the sake of controlling me. Does it help anyone else? No. Does it give them a feeling of power? Yes. How is someone telling anyone who or what they can believe in or practice a reduction in government? How is someone telling kids they should pray in school a reduction in government? These are parental decisions, not government decisions. How is someone using my tax dollars to supplement oil companies a reduction in government? How is it when we go to false wars with my tax dollars a reduction in government? How is spending billions on unnecessary and un-useful weapons a reduction in government?
__________________
YES WE DID!!! AGAIN!!!
bumbleroot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2009, 08:57 AM   #44
Drysdale
RSS Feed
 
Drysdale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 20,628
Ah Bubbles... still only a 2-dimensional asshat after all these years!
__________________
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
-Robert A. Heinlein

"Thou shalt not steal. Except by majority vote." - Gary North
Drysdale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2009, 09:01 AM   #45
Lurikeen
Freaky
 
Lurikeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 17,873
Originally Posted by bumbleroot View Post
How is someone telling anyone who or what they can believe in or practice a reduction in government?
Do you mean that telling people they should believe global warming is a fact and that they should practice environmentalism is growing government? Do you mean telling people they should believe in giving women a right to an abortion and allow its practice is growing government?
__________________
"All I said was... that bit of halibut is good enough for Jehovah." —Monty Python's "Life of Brian"
Lurikeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2009, 09:44 AM   #46
Lurikeen
Freaky
 
Lurikeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 17,873
Originally Posted by Heretic View Post
I agree that it is a possibility. But why is it all of a sudden the best explanation given that we have no existence of gods.
I don't know what "all of a sudden" is referring to. The idea of a supreme being who is eternal and responsible for creating the physical world can be found all the way back to ancient Judaism. We also find this concept of God as the "Prime Mover" in Aristotle in the 4th century BCE. The concept is enunciated much clearer by St. Augustine moving forward to our present day. It isn't until the 18th century A.D. (CE) that the idea of a universe without a creator really started to gain any footing and then it wasn't until Karl Popper's doctrine of "empirical falsifiaction" (approx. 1935) that the supernatural was ruled out by some as potentially being a viable explanation in any empirical study. In short, God as a "prime mover" has been the best explanation for quite a long time. That in itself doesn't make it correct, but it is only recently that any supernatural explanation would not be considered.
__________________
"All I said was... that bit of halibut is good enough for Jehovah." —Monty Python's "Life of Brian"
Lurikeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2009, 10:12 AM   #47
bumbleroot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 7,756
Do you mean that telling people they should believe global warming is a fact and that they should practice environmentalism is growing government?
So you are an anarchist then.
Sorry asswipe but regulation is necessary at times. When we become too polluted, its got to be fixed.
As far as global warming- you have already re-earned your conservative stripes, you can quit playing the game now. You were one of those insisting it was a fact earlier, now you changed. I'm glad you have a real firm opinion on it.
Need I quote you....
Look, I am not a scientist, or even an amatuer scientist, but when a large group of scientists can agree on this sort of matter, I think it is high time to listen and not make excuses.
http://www.erollisimarr.com/forum/sh...global+warming
__________________
YES WE DID!!! AGAIN!!!
bumbleroot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2009, 10:24 AM   #48
Lurikeen
Freaky
 
Lurikeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 17,873
Originally Posted by bumbleroot View Post
So you are an anarchist then.
Sorry asswipe but regulation is necessary at times. When we become too polluted, its got to be fixed.
As far as global warming- you have already re-earned your conservative stripes, you can quit playing the game now. You were one of those insisting it was a fact earlier, now you changed. I'm glad you have a real firm opinion on it.
Need I quote you....

http://www.erollisimarr.com/forum/sh...global+warming
Let's review your initial rhetorical question in response to my statement, "Your average Bible thumping conservative typically wants to reduce the size and power of government."

Quote...
Originally Posted by Fumbles
How is someone telling anyone who or what they can believe in or practice a reduction in government?
Implicit in your question is the claim that government "telling someone" what they can "believe in or practice" will increase the size of government. Notice that is not what I had suggested in my response to Phal? What you did Bumbles was yank a statement out of its context and misconstrue it into saying something it does not. Then when faced with your error you pull a typical "Bumbles" stunt and attempt to side track the discussion into one of your little rabbit holes. The fact is that you are wrong with your misconstrual of my earlier statement and you owned yourself in the process of making the claim implied in your rhetorical question which is born out by my questions in response to yours.
__________________
"All I said was... that bit of halibut is good enough for Jehovah." —Monty Python's "Life of Brian"
Lurikeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2009, 10:32 AM   #49
Drysdale
RSS Feed
 
Drysdale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 20,628
Originally Posted by bumbleroot View Post
So you are an anarchist then.
Not being a gullible little Demococksucker doesn't make you an anarchist. It just makes you smarter than the gum on the bottom of your shoe.
__________________
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
-Robert A. Heinlein

"Thou shalt not steal. Except by majority vote." - Gary North
Drysdale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2009, 09:19 PM   #50
Heretic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,762
As for the argument between bumbles and lurikeen...yes, both parties want big government. The conservatives want control over your social issues and democrats want control over your bank account.


Originally Posted by lurikeen
I don't know what "all of a sudden" is referring to. The idea of a supreme being who is eternal and responsible for creating the physical world can be found all the way back to ancient Judaism.
Ok ''all of a sudden'' was bad choice of words on my part. Whenever it happened, it was passing the buck to an invisible force though.


Originally Posted by bumbleroot
So you are an anarchist then.
Sorry asswipe but regulation is necessary at times. When we become too polluted, its got to be fixed.
I agree, that if global warming caused by CO2 were a fact, any means necessary would have to be taken. Even if this meant going to war with China and such to stop them from polluting.

Boy am I glad global warming is a bunch of fucking batshit nonsense.
__________________
bg85 on another forum:
"i always refer to myself as a "missionary agnostic." that is, not only do i not know shit about shit, but i'm going to try and convince you that you don't know shit about shit either and there's no way for you to know shit about shit."

Heretic
Heretic is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:24 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.