View Full Version : Match-Cut Presidential Primary
Benny Profane
01-02-2008, 02:55 PM
Since most of us won't get to vote in a meaningful primary, I thought it might be interesting to do a MC survey. Pretend there's a gun to your head and you must pick one Democrat AND one Republican that you would vote for in a general election regardless of their realistic chance of winning.
Dem: Obama. Won't vote for Hillary mainly because we need to break the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton rut. Obama is a candidate of change (he hasn't been around long enough to be business as usual.) I don't trust Edwards even a little bit. Strikes me as phony. I kind of like Richardson and Biden but both seem to have a tendency to say stupid crap out if the blue. So Obama it is.
Republican: Ron Paul. The ONLY Republican that offers real change and the only anti-war candidate on the Republican side. He may be bordering on batshit insane, but I like him. The 80% of what I agree with him on outweighs the 20% I don't. His anti-war stance is basically just isolationism, which I think should be handled on a case-by-case basis, but he's the best of the bunch.
Go.
bac0n
01-02-2008, 03:02 PM
Democrat: Dennis Kucinich
Republican: Ron Paul
They're the only candidates in either party whom I feel have enough integrity to earn my trust.
Kurosawa Fan
01-02-2008, 03:16 PM
Dem: Joe Biden
Rep: Ron Paul
Ezee E
01-02-2008, 03:33 PM
Dem: Barrack Obama
Rep: Ron Paul
Does Ron Paul have a chance in the real primary? Probably not, but I seem to hear his name all the time on the web. Just never in the news.
shaun
01-02-2008, 03:37 PM
Republican - Ron Paul. Self explanatory. Our government needs a reboot and none of the other candidates (democrats included, aside from Kucinich) offer change in any significant way. We need to get away from an ever expanding government and a political scene that's beholden to their corporate masters. I'm not a registered Republican so I unfortunately will not be able to vote for him since there's pretty much no chance he'll make it to the general election.
Democrat - Obama/Edwards. Going just based on what he says, I like Edwards the best but lawyers, especially tort lawyers such as him, are generally pretty shady and evil characters so I'm keeping an eye out for him talking out both sides of his mouth. I like his message and stance on a quite a few issues, but I'm very wary of him.
I like Obama, quite a bit, and he's young enough in the political sense to not have been entirely corrupted by the political machine but he does tend to do things that I have no tolerance for, like avoiding votes on tough issues. Most politicians in office seem to think their number one responsibility is to further their own political careers and when that fails, to further the political base of their party, when they should be representing their constituents and working towards a public good. He needs to wake up in that respect.
Hillary is shit, a whore to corporations and a double talking politician in every sense of the word. Unless Paul gets the Repub nod, I will vote for a random Libertarian candidate over her.
I guess that's it.
Raiders
01-02-2008, 03:55 PM
My favorite candidate is Dennis Kucinich, but a vote for him would just likely be wasted, so I'd probably give it to Obama. I don't participate in the Republican primary, but Ron Paul is easily the only option.
Mysterious Dude
01-02-2008, 04:04 PM
Dem: Obama
Rep: anyone but Huckabee
The thing I like about Romney, McCain and Giuliani is that, regardless of their politics, they would at least bring the Republican party away from the Christian right, and that's a good thing, as far as I'm concerned.
Milky Joe
01-02-2008, 04:19 PM
Democrat: John Edwards
Republican: Ron Paul
I don't understand how you can trust Obama or Biden but not Edwards. And also, responding to E, I think Ron Paul has much more of a chance in the primaries than anyone on TV is willing to admit. And even if he does lose, he'll probably take his 10 million dollars and run as an independent.
Raiders
01-02-2008, 04:21 PM
I don't know how you can trust any politician. I just shoot for the best, but deep down I alsways feel uneasy voting for any of them.
Milky Joe
01-02-2008, 04:24 PM
Well, granted. And Edwards is a Bilderberger, which makes me even more weary of him. but the fact of the matter is that the things that he says he'll do are so much more focused and pointed and meaningful than anything Obama says. Obama may be black, but going by his rhetoric, he's as vanilla as Hillary.
Raiders
01-02-2008, 04:29 PM
Well, granted. And Edwards is a Bilderberger, which makes me even more weary of him. but the fact of the matter is that the things that he says he'll do are so much more focused and pointed and meaningful than anything Obama says. Obama may be black, but going by his rhetoric, he's as vanilla as Hillary.
But... but... he's got Oprah!
Sycophant
01-02-2008, 04:43 PM
My voting may be influenced by what comes before. However, I'd only be voting in the Democratic primary.
If I wanted to vote to make myself feel good, I'd be inclined to vote Kucinich or (less likely) Gravel. However, if it's looking tight, I'll probably pitch ina vote for Edwards or Obama (an Edwards-Obama ticket is the most promising realistic choice for me at the moment).
Ezee E
01-02-2008, 05:45 PM
But... but... he's got Oprah!
If Oprah can get Crash an Oscar, surely she can get Obama a simple seat in the White House.
Spinal
01-02-2008, 05:58 PM
Edwards
Yxklyx
01-02-2008, 06:08 PM
I've always voted Democrat but there's not much difference today anyway. I'm leaning towards Ron Paul - sure he has some crazy ideas I don't care for but there's no chance in hell those ideas will ever become law, so I'm willing to allow him his eccentricities.
Raiders
01-02-2008, 06:10 PM
I've always voted Democrat but there's not much difference today anyway.
I heartily disagree. If you mean all politicians are relatively the same in terms of morals, etc... then perhaps you have a point. If you mean the two platforms have few differences, then I would have to say "no way" to that.
monolith94
01-02-2008, 07:08 PM
Back in 2000, it seemed to me like there wasn't much difference between Democrats and Republicans.
Then Bush came along too show everyone just how much damage a Republican can do.
I'd go for Kucinich, UFOs be damned.
shaun
01-02-2008, 07:09 PM
If you mean all politicians are relatively the same in terms of morals, etc... then perhaps you have a point. If you mean the two platforms have few differences, then I would have to say "no way" to that.He has a point.
Platforms are meaningless unless the politician actually votes according to that platform, which over the past 15 years (and probably much longer really) has proven to not be the case. Democrats can say they're against the war but unless they actually vote against it and stop approving the spending, it's just talk and pandering to a naive voter base. Republicans can say they want smaller government and fiscal responsibility, but if they consistently vote to expand federal power and bureaucracy while decreasing personal freedoms, it's simply empty rhetoric.
If you look at what they actually do and not what they say, I think you'll see that the two major parties are really quite similar.
Benny Profane
01-02-2008, 07:40 PM
He has a point.
Platforms are meaningless unless the politician actually votes according to that platform, which over the past 15 years (and probably much longer really) has proven to not be the case. Democrats can say they're against the war but unless they actually vote against it and stop approving the spending, it's just talk and pandering to a naive voter base. Republicans can say they want smaller government and fiscal responsibility, but if they consistently vote to expand federal power and bureaucracy while decreasing personal freedoms, it's simply empty rhetoric.
If you look at what they actually do and not what they say, I think you'll see that the two major parties are really quite similar.
This is all true, but if you can show me an average person who tracks a politician's voting record throughout their career to figure out if who they are voting for has integrity, then I'll be impressed.
Other than that, most of what the regular person has to go by is public perception and image, which is usually cultivated by biased forces.
chrisnu
01-02-2008, 07:45 PM
Democrat: Edwards
Republican: Paul
However, I'm a registered Independent, so I can't vote in either primary. :)
Rowland
01-02-2008, 07:49 PM
The last year's spectacle has been embarrassing. I'm thinking about just dismissing politics as fodder to be laughed at, so that this year will be a lot less depressing than it could be. That there is so much at stake only makes it funnier.
Milky Joe
01-02-2008, 07:59 PM
You just summed up everything that's wrong with our country, Rowl.
EDIT: and I don't mean that to be snarky or anything, just simply as a fact.
shaun
01-02-2008, 08:07 PM
Other than that, most of what the regular person has to go by is public perception and image, which is usually cultivated by biased forces.I don't disagree with any of this. Unfortunately people will almost always choose to not inform themselves of a candidate's voting record in favor of some softball debate or CNN interview. It doesn't make our electoral process any more appetizing
I'm thinking about just dismissing politics as fodder to be laughed at, so that this year will be a lot less depressing than it could be. That there is so much at stake only makes it funnier.I'm not sure what's funnier, that Bush ran in 04 on a platform of incompetence and won, or that Democrats ran in 06 on a platform of reform and decided that incompetence was a much better idea.
BirdsAteMyFace
01-02-2008, 08:11 PM
Democrat: Kucinich
Republican: Paul
Kucinich gets my vote. Abolishing the death penalty is probably one of the only issues we disagree upon, if I recall his platform correctly.
Spinal
01-02-2008, 08:29 PM
I wish the current Democrats were further to the left and more courageous at times, but after eight years of Bush, I don't understand how people still think there's little difference between the two parties. Not enough difference? Perhaps. But to say they are essentially the same is ludicrous, in my opinion.
Yxklyx
01-02-2008, 09:18 PM
...I'm not sure what's funnier, that Bush ran in 04 on a platform of incompetence and won, or that Democrats ran in 06 on a platform of reform and decided that incompetence was a much better idea.
Based on the last election the worst person for the job will probably get elected - so Huckabee it is.
monolith94
01-02-2008, 09:29 PM
Actually, if I were to vote in the republican primary, it'd probably be for McCain. Right now he seems the least slimy of all the republicans.
I still think McCain is slimy.
Mr. Valentine
01-03-2008, 01:29 AM
due to the massive amount of Ron Paul propaganda littering my town i checked out his webpage and listened to a few of his positions and he makes George W. Bush look like Ralph Nader.
the only person on either platform i could see possibly voting for would be Obama and i'm not too impressed with him either.
Mysterious Dude
01-03-2008, 01:31 AM
Ron Paul's domestic policy is completely right wing, but his foreign policy seems quite reasonable to me.
Yxklyx
01-03-2008, 04:06 AM
Ron Paul's domestic policy is completely right wing, but his foreign policy seems quite reasonable to me.
Yeah exactly, but I figure he won't be able to enact much of his domestic policy (even if Congress is Republican controlled which it probably won't be) - but his foreign policy should work.
shaun
01-03-2008, 04:35 AM
People love Ron Paul for his non-interventionist stance on foreign affairs but I'd bet most of those supporters would be less likely to support him withdrawing from and ceasing funding of organizations that he believes usurp US sovereignty like the UN and NATO. He also grades an F from darfurscores.org for voted aid to the region.
You have to give him credit for being consistent at the very least.
Mr. Valentine
01-03-2008, 04:39 AM
"Abortion on demand is no doubt the most serious sociopolitical problem of our age. The lack of respect for life that permits abortion significantly contributes to our violent culture and our careless attitude toward liberty"-Ron Paul
Milky Joe
01-03-2008, 04:42 AM
Michael Moore weighs in. (http://www.alternet.org/story/72345/)
"And then there's John Edwards.It's hard to get past the hair, isn't it? But once you do -- and recently I have chosen to try -- you find a man who is out to take on the wealthy and powerful who have made life so miserable for so many. A candidate who says things like this: "I absolutely believe to my soul that this corporate greed and corporate power has an ironclad hold on our democracy." Whoa. We haven't heard anyone talk like that in a while, at least not anyone who is near the top of the polls. I suspect this is why Edwards is doing so well in Iowa, even though he has nowhere near the stash of cash the other two have. He won't take the big checks from the corporate PACs, and he is alone among the top three candidates in agreeing to limit his spending and be publicly funded. He has said, point-blank, that he's going after the drug companies and the oil companies and anyone else who is messing with the American worker. The media clearly find him to be a threat, probably because he will go after their monopolistic power, too. This is Roosevelt/Truman kind of talk. That's why it's resonating with people in Iowa, even though he doesn't get the attention Obama and Hillary get -- and that lack of coverage may cost him the first place spot in Iowa."
Mr. Valentine
01-03-2008, 04:43 AM
"I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator." - Ron Paul
that's two quotes that show that this guy is not for me.
jesse
01-03-2008, 04:49 AM
Well, I'll cast the lone vote for Clinton.
Oh, and I just found something that expresses a lot the reasons why:
I don't think it's just Bush era despair when I say that the Democratic field is the best in my lifetime. Their heads and hearts are connected, their positions are mostly good, and they can be pressured on the ones that aren't. But Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama add something new and crucial: life experience shared with a worldwide majority that has been excluded by sex, or race, or both.
The difference is this: Hillary Clinton knows how Washington works; Kafka-style, she's had it written on her skin. Her two "firsts" in presidential history -- eight years of on-the-job training and no masculinity to prove -- allow her to both understand and change the system. In contrast, Obama is making a virtue of not knowing by running as an outsider. Jimmy Carter won that way, but the country paid a high price. We can't afford it now.
This leaves the question of electability. Clinton has an image problem from right-wing Swift boating, but any non-right-wing candidate will suffer this fate. Her Iraq mistake has been mitigated by her sincere condemning of the war. The notion that she's cold or calculating dissolves in her warm and spontaneous presence.
In other words, she can govern. It's up to us to elect her. So I'm for eight years of President Clinton -- with Obama as ally in the Senate -- and then eight years of President Obama. After all, it will take that long to clean up this mess. Meanwhile, the world will get a bonus: Bill Clinton as Eleanor Roosevelt. (Gloria Steinem, author and activist)
Horbgorbler
01-03-2008, 05:02 AM
Can I bypass all this and just vote Eric B. for president?
Mr. Valentine
01-03-2008, 05:08 AM
"Independent voters are a growing political force in Arizona, but their influence falls short of being able to cast a ballot in the presidential primary.
A record 28 percent of the state's registered voters are independents, meaning they belong to no party recognized by the state.
By law, no independents can vote on Feb. 5 in the state's Presidential Preference Election, which determines the number of delegates each candidate receives in the nomination races. "
i'm an independant and this is why are political system is ridiculous.
Milky Joe
01-03-2008, 05:09 AM
The mere idea of Hillary Clinton as the "agent of change" is simply hilarious.
shaun
01-03-2008, 06:06 AM
I'd like to charlie horse anyone who votes based the endorsement of Oprah or Michael Moore.
i'm an independant and this is why are political system is ridiculous.You think it's ridiculous that a political party only wants its members voting on who it chooses to be its presidential candidate?
I think that's one of the few sane things about our electoral process.
Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich. Paul seems to be getting dissed by the major media and might not have much momentum when the primary gets here, so I'd probably go with McCain in that case.
transmogrifier
01-03-2008, 12:29 PM
"I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator." - Ron Paul
that's two quotes that show that this guy is not for me.
Oh dear. There is no way I could ever in good conscience vote for anyone who truly believes that.
Yxklyx
01-03-2008, 03:51 PM
Oh dear. There is no way I could ever in good conscience vote for anyone who truly believes that.
Well, then there's no one left to vote for.
Milky Joe
01-03-2008, 04:24 PM
I really don't see why that should have anything to do with one's decision to vote. Shouldn't you be looking at the issues that will actually affect the country and policy? Ron Paul may be a conservative Christian (like the majority of the country and the other candidates), and he may be forthright and unabashed in his views (as he is on everything else), but that has no bearing on what he would actually do as President. It's like saying I'm not going to vote for Hillary because she's a woman.
Sycophant
01-03-2008, 04:28 PM
I really don't see why that should have anything to do with one's decision to vote. Shouldn't you be looking at the issues that will actually affect the country and policy? Ron Paul may be a conservative Christian (like the majority of the country and the other candidates), and he may be forthright and unabashed in his views (as he is on everything else), but that has no bearing on what he would actually do as President. It's like saying I'm not going to vote for Hillary because she's a woman.The idea that a persons's faith, and particularly his or her public relationship with it, is comparable to one's skin, gender, or height strikes me as silly. I'm wary of a candidate who happily admits both that what we have is not a society overseen by people, but by God, and that our candidate is here to enforce God's will as he perceives it. We live in a society goverened by and for the people. Putting this in the context of the previous quote aobut abortion is enough to get my social libertarian side a little riled up and happy that Paul doesn't stand a chance in hell.
Kurosawa Fan
01-03-2008, 04:30 PM
Oh dear. There is no way I could ever in good conscience vote for anyone who truly believes that.
At least he's honest about his faith and doesn't mind expressing it. I'd rather have that than someone who uses his "faith and beliefs" to generate votes from Christians, only to avoid using the word God and faith any other time for fear of people (much like yourself) deciding they are too strong in their faith and not voting for them for that reason alone.
Sycophant
01-03-2008, 04:32 PM
I think trans's objection is more in Paul's seeming denial of man's hand in our society. I want my governors to believe that man has the capacity to control his world.
I have no problem with people being religious. But if they're stating their religious views as part of their campaign, and I detect something in that belief that seems as if it'll influence the way they serve in a way that I don't want, then I object to it.
Also, the "faith and belief" and values shtick that nearly every other candidate pulls makes me sick, as well, though in a different way.
Milky Joe
01-03-2008, 04:39 PM
I'm wary of a candidate who happily admits both that what we have is not a society overseen by people, but by God, and that our candidate is here to enforce God's will as he perceives it.
Except that second part is not what Ron Paul thinks. He is there to enforce the Constitution, which is a document written specifically in order to restrain government, to preserve personal liberty (including religious freedom) and allow for self-governance.
Kurosawa Fan
01-03-2008, 04:59 PM
I think trans's objection is more in Paul's seeming denial of man's hand in our society. I want my governors to believe that man has the capacity to control his world.
Nothing he says contradicts this. He's saying that God gave us life. Nothing more. He professes that he's a Christians, and Christians don't believe that God controls the universe. They believe in free will. He's saying that we control the world and the freedom that God gave us.
shaun
01-03-2008, 05:20 PM
Except that second part is not what Ron Paul thinks. He is there to enforce the Constitution, which is a document written specifically in order to restrain government, to preserve personal liberty (including religious freedom) and allow for self-governance.This.
Nothing Ron Paul has done in our government suggests that he's guided in his decisions by God. He's a strict Constitutionalist when it comes to US policy.
Ezee E
01-03-2008, 07:01 PM
Anyone remember Constantinople? God helped him make decisions.
Barty
01-03-2008, 07:06 PM
I don't see how Paul's religious beliefs impact negatively on his decision to uphold the constitution, in fact, they clearly influence him in a way where he feels a profound sense of duty to protect it.
Mr. Valentine
01-03-2008, 08:26 PM
I really don't see why that should have anything to do with one's decision to vote. Shouldn't you be looking at the issues that will actually affect the country and policy? Ron Paul may be a conservative Christian (like the majority of the country and the other candidates), and he may be forthright and unabashed in his views (as he is on everything else), but that has no bearing on what he would actually do as President. It's like saying I'm not going to vote for Hillary because she's a woman.
him being a conservative christian is going to have no bearing on what he will do as a president???
please tell me your not that naive.
Milky Joe
01-03-2008, 08:39 PM
Do you even know anything about the man? Have you ever even listened to what he says? Or did you just read a couple out-of-context quotes on the internet before judging? If you knew what he actually stood for and what he would do as president and why, you would know that religion has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Mr. Valentine
01-03-2008, 08:50 PM
Do you even know anything about the man? Have you ever even listened to what he says? Or did you just read a couple out-of-context quotes on the internet before judging? If you knew what he actually stood for and what he would do as president and why, you would know that religion has absolutely nothing to do with it.
these aren't out of context quotes, these are straight from the mans official website under the issues listed.
the quote on religion was straight from his stance on religion from his website same with the abortion quote was which straight from his stance on abortion.
i have listened to other of his issues and the majority of them worry me these two just happen to be the big ones to my sense of what i want in a president.
his heavy pushing of home schooling, wanting us not to be involved with the UN and his strict constituionalist values all also worry me.
Sycophant
01-03-2008, 08:57 PM
Doing some searching, I found a disturbing amount of instances of Ron Paul decrying the machinations of the secular left and throwing around the word "secular" like a sin. I don't like that.
I can respect Paul for being principled, but I sure don't care much for most of those principles.
transmogrifier
01-03-2008, 08:57 PM
At least he's honest about his faith and doesn't mind expressing it. I'd rather have that than someone who uses his "faith and beliefs" to generate votes from Christians, only to avoid using the word God and faith any other time for fear of people (much like yourself) deciding they are too strong in their faith and not voting for them for that reason alone.
Well, surely I get points for being honest in my contempt for someone who has such contempt for humanity. And in my mind, that's what someone who believes that God grants us our morals, and laws and freedoms has. You know what? We're better than that. You know what? Life is an amazing thing, struggling its way out of an inanimate universe, and humans are an amazing thing, consciousness arising out of this drive for life in the universe. To turn around and deny us our sovereignty, to say that we are nothing but lambs to the whim of some deity who can do whatever, whenever is perverse, draining a lot of the magic and wonder from the world around us. It also takes the responsibility off us to improve our condiditions here on Earth, to safeguard our own future.
Just once, I'd love to hear a candidate say something like that.
Kurosawa Fan
01-03-2008, 09:02 PM
Well, surely I get points for being honest in my contempt for someone who has such contempt for humanity. And in my mind, that's what someone who believes that God grants us our morals, and laws and freedoms has. You know what? We're better than that. You know what? Life is an amazing thing, struggling its way out of an inanimate universe, and humans are an amazing thing, consciousness arising out of this drive for life in the universe. To turn around and deny us our sovereignty, to say that we are nothing but lambs to the whim of some deity who can do whatever, whenever is perverse, draining a lot of the magic and wonder from the world around us. It also takes the responsibility off us to improve our condiditions here on Earth, to safeguard our own future.
Just once, I'd love to hear a candidate say something like that.
You clearly know nothing about Christianity, though a conversation would be pointless as your contempt for those who believe in God is obviously firmly in place. I feel sorry for you.
Rowland
01-03-2008, 09:12 PM
Well, surely I get points for being honest in my contempt for someone who has such contempt for humanity. And in my mind, that's what someone who believes that God grants us our morals, and laws and freedoms has. You know what? We're better than that. You know what? Life is an amazing thing, struggling its way out of an inanimate universe, and humans are an amazing thing, consciousness arising out of this drive for life in the universe. To turn around and deny us our sovereignty, to say that we are nothing but lambs to the whim of some deity who can do whatever, whenever is perverse, draining a lot of the magic and wonder from the world around us. It also takes the responsibility off us to improve our condiditions here on Earth, to safeguard our own future.
Just once, I'd love to hear a candidate say something like that.You've reminded me of something I recently read: I Don't Respect Your Religion (http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2007/12/27/i-dont-respect-your-religion/)
transmogrifier
01-03-2008, 09:27 PM
You clearly know nothing about Christianity, though a conversation would be pointless as your contempt for those who believe in God is obviously firmly in place. I feel sorry for you.
Don't feel sorry for me. I'm doing okay.
I don't feel contempt for people who believe in God, per se, and I shouldn't have said that I felt contempt for Ron Paul - it was more of a rhetorical device than anything else. But I do believe that the fundamental idea of there being a God devalues the brilliance of life. Sure, I'm not all caught up on the intricacies of the Christian faith, which is why I didn't specify any particular religions by name (you did that for me). I was talking about the basic idea in principle.
If I were a leader of my country, I wouldn't dream of banning religion, or anything like that. As humans, we have the right to get our principles for living life from anywhere we please. But I do think that religion is superfluous to the running of a good country, to the excellence of the human race.
transmogrifier
01-03-2008, 09:29 PM
You've reminded me of something I recently read: I Don't Respect Your Religion (http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2007/12/27/i-dont-respect-your-religion/)
That guy is arguing the extremes. There are amoral idiots of every variety, secular and religious. Humans are violent, no doubt about it, but somewhere down the line, we have to take responsibility for that ourselves.
Kurosawa Fan
01-03-2008, 09:49 PM
Don't feel sorry for me. I'm doing okay.
I don't feel contempt for people who believe in God, per se, and I shouldn't have said that I felt contempt for Ron Paul - it was more of a rhetorical device than anything else. But I do believe that the fundamental idea of there being a God devalues the brilliance of life. Sure, I'm not all caught up on the intricacies of the Christian faith, which is why I didn't specify any particular religions by name (you did that for me). I was talking about the basic idea in principle.
If I were a leader of my country, I wouldn't dream of banning religion, or anything like that. As humans, we have the right to get our principles for living life from anywhere we please. But I do think that religion is superfluous to the running of a good country, to the excellence of the human race.
Well, that helps to clear things up. I disagree with you about the existence of God devaluing the brilliance of life. We still have free will. We don't have to follow the word of God, or the teachings of any higher being. He set guidelines for us to live by, but doesn't force us to follow.
I only brought Christianity into the discussion because the discussion was about Ron Paul. I'm not a Christian. At least I'm not sure if I am at this point. I believe in God. I believe that there was a creator. On the subject of Christ I remain undecided, which obviously separates me from Christians. But I have a strong faith, the same as you, and it bothers me when people trivialize my faith in God as if it's any sillier or less intelligent than having faith in man and science.
Rowland
01-03-2008, 09:51 PM
it bothers me when people trivialize my faith in God as if it's any sillier or less intelligent than having faith in man and science.Faith in science?
Kurosawa Fan
01-03-2008, 09:58 PM
Faith in science?
Sure. Most people don't apply that word to science, but I do. Science is a lot of speculation, and even when something is "proved correct", it can be disproved later with new technology and further study. For instance, if I told you 10 years ago that giving a man oxygen whose heart has stopped due to a heart attack would kill him, you would have laughed me out of the room (or thread). But wasn't it you who posted a link that recent study has shown that the reintroduction of oxygen kills the brain, and that lowering the body temperature has proven to be a much more successful way of saving said person?
Most atheists use science and/or logic as the crux of their argument against the existence of God. It still requires an abstract form of faith in that science and that logic. It was developed by man, no? Isn't it fallible? And for all that scientific advancement, has any scientist been able to prove without a doubt that God doesn't exist?
It may not be the same type of faith, but faith still seems to be prevalent in the beliefs of an atheist.
Mysterious Dude
01-03-2008, 10:15 PM
To what end can a person have faith in science?
If a person has faith in God, then they believe that God will give them a better life after they die (or whatever they want to believe). This cannot be proven.
But if someone has "faith" that giving oxygen will help save a heart attack victim, then they will, I suppose, give oxygen to heart attack victims. Eventually, they might realize that it isn't helping, and they will abandon that "faith".
I can't think of anything created by science that I have faith in. I don't have faith in my computer -- it has failed me many times. I don't have faith in my car, for I know that cars are imperfect and I could be killed while driving it. I don't have any faith that, if I have a heart attack some day, I can be saved by being given oxygen. And I never did. And even people who may have once believed in that method wouldn't either, because they know there is no sure way to save a person from a heart attack.
Rowland
01-03-2008, 10:16 PM
Sure. Most people don't apply that word to science, but I do. Science is a lot of speculation, and even when something is "proved correct", it can be disproved later with new technology and further study. For instance, if I told you 10 years ago that giving a man oxygen whose heart has stopped due to a heart attack would kill him, you would have laughed me out of the room (or thread). But wasn't it you who posted a link that recent study has shown that the reintroduction of oxygen kills the brain, and that lowering the body temperature has proven to be a much more successful way of saving said person?
Most atheists use science and/or logic as the crux of their argument against the existence of God. It still requires an abstract form of faith in that science and that logic. It was developed by man, no? Isn't it fallible? And for all that scientific advancement, has any scientist been able to prove without a doubt that God doesn't exist?
It may not be the same type of faith, but faith still seems to be prevalent in the beliefs of an atheist.A can of worms I'd rather not parse.
...so how about those caucuses? :pritch:
Spinal
01-03-2008, 10:20 PM
And for all that scientific advancement, has any scientist been able to prove without a doubt that God doesn't exist?
Without a doubt? No. But they have been able to prove that it is not terribly likely.
transmogrifier
01-03-2008, 10:21 PM
Sure. Most people don't apply that word to science, but I do. Science is a lot of speculation, and even when something is "proved correct", it can be disproved later with new technology and further study. For instance, if I told you 10 years ago that giving a man oxygen whose heart has stopped due to a heart attack would kill him, you would have laughed me out of the room (or thread). But wasn't it you who posted a link that recent study has shown that the reintroduction of oxygen kills the brain, and that lowering the body temperature has proven to be a much more successful way of saving said person?
Most atheists use science and/or logic as the crux of their argument against the existence of God. It still requires an abstract form of faith in that science and that logic. It was developed by man, no? Isn't it fallible? And for all that scientific advancement, has any scientist been able to prove without a doubt that God doesn't exist?
It may not be the same type of faith, but faith still seems to be prevalent in the beliefs of an atheist.
But how is this not religion beating science with the same stick that it has been using to prop itself up for so long? I'm incredibly interested in how people with faith, like yourself, will dismiss science because it is "fallible", in some way a matter of faith, and can't prove anything.
How (How??) is this any different from your side of the fence? If you are taking these things as important components in choosing what to believe, why do you exempt religion from the same test or rigorousness?
That aside, of course, science doesn't have all the answers yet, but look at the advances that have been made. Science is constantly reassessing and questioning itself, in order to find the basic principles that the universe is run on. That's an exciting thing. I just find it highly amusing that relgious people look down on what they see as faith in science, and yet cozy up to their faith in some otherworldy superorganism.
Logic is all we have, either way.
Melville
01-03-2008, 10:21 PM
Without a doubt? No. But they have been able to prove that it is not terribly likely.
How so?
Spinal
01-03-2008, 10:29 PM
How so?
See The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, Chapter 4.
Spinal
01-03-2008, 10:34 PM
Here's a summary of Dawkins' argument. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Boeing_747_gambit)
Milky Joe
01-03-2008, 10:37 PM
Heh, this is the second time and second forum in which in under a week I've seen a thread go from a discussion about Ron Paul to a discussion of science vs. faith within the space of a page.
Kurosawa Fan
01-03-2008, 10:39 PM
To what end can a person have faith in science?
If a person has faith in God, then they believe that God will give them a better life after they die (or whatever they want to believe). This cannot be proven.
But if someone has "faith" that giving oxygen will help save a heart attack victim, then they will, I suppose, give oxygen to heart attack victims. Eventually, they might realize that it isn't helping, and they will abandon that "faith".
I can't think of anything created by science that I have faith in. I don't have faith in my computer -- it has failed me many times. I don't have faith in my car, for I know that cars are imperfect and I could be killed while driving it. I don't have any faith that, if I have a heart attack some day, I can be saved by being given oxygen. And I never did. And even people who may have once believed in that method wouldn't either, because they know there is no sure way to save a person from a heart attack.
I'm not explaining myself clearly. It's not so much that an atheist has faith in scientific achievement, but rather a faith that science has shown that there is no God. Atheism is a belief system, no? In order to believe in something that can't be proved one way or the other, you must have faith that what you believe is the truth. Atheists have faith in their belief that there is no God, because science has shown it to be so.
Without a doubt? No. But they have been able to prove that it is not terribly likely.
But that means nothing, no? Many religious texts have proved that it's terribly likely that there is a creator, a god, and that The Bible is factual. For instance, a place near the Dead Sea was discovered that many Christians believe is the site of Sodom and Gomorrah. It's location is very similar to the description found in The Bible and at this location they have found balls of sulfur in that area that are 96-98% pure. Scientists can't explain this, as it's not from any type of geo-thermal activity as there is no evidence of such in the area, and geo-thermal sulfur nodules are only 40 percent pure sulfur. Here's a link (http://www.arkdiscovery.com/sodom_&_gomorrah.htm). But in the end it means nothing. Anyone can provide endless information "proving" one side or the other, but it still comes back to faith that what you believe is correct. Nothing can be proved, and none of us will know with certainty until our death.
Kurosawa Fan
01-03-2008, 10:46 PM
But how is this not religion beating science with the same stick that it has been using to prop itself up for so long? I'm incredibly interested in how people with faith, like yourself, will dismiss science because it is "fallible", in some way a matter of faith, and can't prove anything.
How (How??) is this any different from your side of the fence? If you are taking these things as important components in choosing what to believe, why do you exempt religion from the same test or rigorousness?
That aside, of course, science doesn't have all the answers yet, but look at the advances that have been made. Science is constantly reassessing and questioning itself, in order to find the basic principles that the universe is run on. That's an exciting thing. I just find it highly amusing that relgious people look down on what they see as faith in science, and yet cozy up to their faith in some otherworldy superorganism.
Logic is all we have, either way.
It isn't different. Do you really think I haven't questioned my faith? That I know without a doubt that I'm correct? I don't, and I've never pretended that I do. And I bet if you asked most people, they'd say the same. My own pastor has admitted to struggles with his faith and times of grave doubts. But as I said above, there are infinite texts on both sides of the fence, and why is choosing one side over the other any more or less intelligent? In the end, I cannot convince myself that the entire universe is an accident. I feel that there's a creator. Maybe I'll die and that'll be it. Maybe I'll find a creator who couldn't give a shit. I don't think so. I think I'll find God and some form of afterlife, some eternal peace. Maybe that's my upbringing. Maybe it's the fear that death is the end. Maybe it's as C.S. Lewis says, that the reason I feel this way is because I know it to be true. In Mere Christianity he put forth that the body knows when it's hungry and tells you to eat. It knows when it's tired and tells you to sleep. In that same way, it knows that there is a God, that there is a creator, and tells me to seek him out. Whatever the reason, at this point in my life I believe that there is a God, and that he'll be there when I die.
Spinal
01-03-2008, 10:48 PM
But that means nothing, no? Many religious texts have proved that it's terribly likely that there is a creator, a god, and that The Bible is factual. For instance, a place near the Dead Sea was discovered that many Christians believe is the site of Sodom and Gomorrah. It's location is very similar to the description found in The Bible and at this location they have found balls of sulfur in that area that are 96-98% pure. Scientists can't explain this, as it's not [SIZE=2]from any type of geo-thermal activity as there is no evidence of such in the area, and geo-thermal sulfur nodules are only 40 percent pure sulfur.
The problem here is the gigantic leap from 'scientists can't explain it' to 'God exists'. Based on past experience, I would guess that scientists will eventually explain it given enough time and God will seem that much more unlikely.
Milky Joe
01-03-2008, 10:55 PM
Just saw this and thought it was kind of germane to the discussion:
Quantum leap in technology to unravel 'cosmic web' of universe (http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Quantum_leap_in_technology_to_ unrav_01032008.html)
Kurosawa Fan
01-03-2008, 10:57 PM
The problem here is the gigantic leap from 'scientists can't explain it' to 'God exists'. Based on past experience, I would guess that scientists will eventually explain it given enough time and God will seem that much more unlikely.
In the same way that they explained that giving oxygen to a person dying of a heart attack was the best way to save his life? ;)
Look, I don't enjoy these conversations because they don't go anywhere. They're an endless loop, always coming back to the fact that neither side can prove its position. It's the reason why I didn't voice my opinion when Barty was stating his beliefs, and have largely stayed out of conversations about the existence of God. It just bothers me that there's a stigma that seems to be attached to believing in God, that it's a less intelligent belief and somehow we who believe in God are all fools. I find it tiresome. But we don't need to extend the conversation any further. I'm not here to preach or try to convert. I respect you guys to much for that.
Spinal
01-03-2008, 11:01 PM
It just bothers me that there's a stigma that seems to be attached to believing in God, that it's a less intelligent belief and somehow we who believe in God are all fools.
You'll have to forgive us non-believers. The last several centuries have been kind of rough. :)
Melville
01-03-2008, 11:01 PM
Here's a summary of Dawkins' argument. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Boeing_747_gambit)
I don't see how that shows that the existence of God is unlikely. Dawkins asserts that God's existence is unlikely, and from that concludes that an argument for God's existence that is based on statistical theory is wrong. He says
the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer.
It doesn't if the designer is God. That's the whole point of God: he's the self-moved mover.
The whole problem we started out with was the problem of explaining statistical improbability. It is obviously no solution to postulate something even more improbable. We need a "crane" not a "skyhook," for only a crane can do the business of working up gradually and plausibly from simplicity to otherwise improbable complexity.
I can't begin to imagine what kind of statistical analysis Dawkins is doing to arrive at the assertion that God's existence is improbable. Nor do I see how he is quantifying God's complexity. Any such analysis, and any such quantification is certainly almost completely meaningless.
Spinal
01-03-2008, 11:08 PM
I don't see how that shows that the existence of God is unlikely. Dawkins asserts that God's existence is unlikely, and from that concludes that an argument for God's existence that is based on statistical theory is wrong. He says
It doesn't if the designer is God. That's the whole point of God: he's the self-moved mover.
I can't begin to imagine what kind of statistical analysis Dawkins is doing to arrive at the assertion that God's existence is improbable. Nor do I see how he is quantifying God's complexity. Any such analysis, and any such quantification is certainly almost completely meaningless.
Naturally it works better when it is not a Wikipedia summary. I provided it here just so others would be in on the conversation. But reading the book would probably make more sense.
Barty
01-03-2008, 11:11 PM
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Considering this is from the founding document of this country, I don't' see how Ron Paul's belief in God given rights is crazy or something negative.
Also, KF's use of the word "faith" is dead on the money. It simply means trust, or conviction of truth. So everyone has faith. I have faith in God, I also have faith in the law of the universe. When I take a step, I have faith that gravity is going to keep me on the ground.
Melville
01-03-2008, 11:24 PM
It isn't different. Do you really think I haven't questioned my faith? That I know without a doubt that I'm correct? I don't, and I've never pretended that I do. And I bet if you asked most people, they'd say the same. My own pastor has admitted to struggles with his faith and times of grave doubts. But as I said above, there are infinite texts on both sides of the fence, and why is choosing one side over the other any more or less intelligent?
The difference is that a scientific theory should not purport to be absolute truth. The scientific method is inherently self-testing: it always admits the possibility that future experiments might contradict a currently successful theory; a particular theory can only ever be thought of as a potentially useful explanation or model of empirical observations, never as an absolute description of reality. Furthermore, science doesn't merely admit that a theory might be wrong: it makes somewhat precise just how good a model is, by providing estimates of its errors in measurement as well as by quantifying the realm of applicability of any particular theory. And, best of all, the results that science obtains are largely independent of any particular ideas about the "reality" of science's theoretical concepts: a model makes concrete predictions about what will be measured in particular situations, regardless of whether it is thought of as how the world "actually" is or just as a theoretical apparatus for making predictions.
All of these facts make it somewhat silly to have "faith" in the absolute validity of science (which certainly doesn't stop people from having that faith). But they also make science an excellent tool for discovering the behavior of the natural world.
Melville
01-04-2008, 01:18 AM
I had to answer my phone before I properly finished my last post. Now I can't remember how I meant to finish it. But, anyway, my main point was that science is a good tool for discovering empirical patterns, not an overarching belief system. (Well, it's a good tool if and only if the natural world behaves in a consistent manner; otherwise it wouldn't be very reliable.) It says nothing, nor do I think it ever can say anything very significant, about metaphysical concepts such as the existence of God.
Also, KF's use of the word "faith" is dead on the money. It simply means trust, or conviction of truth. So everyone has faith. I have faith in God, I also have faith in the law of the universe. When I take a step, I have faith that gravity is going to keep me on the ground.
I agree with you to a large extent, but having faith in the continued existence of a particular physical phenomenon is obviously qualitatively different from having faith in a particular explanation for the existence of all phenomena.
monolith94
01-04-2008, 01:57 AM
Here's a summary of Dawkins' argument. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Boeing_747_gambit)
Dawkins' argument depends on assuming that what we mean by "God" is his own personal nemesis: the Abrahamic, personal god of Genesis and Job. It does not adress the God that many believe in and believe in through arguments other than design.
transmogrifier
01-04-2008, 02:08 AM
It doesn't if the designer is God. That's the whole point of God: he's the self-moved mover.
.
Quite frankly, this, to me, is the most ridiculous argument that religion offers up. Apparently, God is exempt from having a creator or an origin, but the universe is not. For the life of me, I will never, ever, ever follow that leap in logic. It doesn't make sense. You simply can't argue that:
- the universe is complex
- ergo, it must have a designer that is even more complex
- but, that complex designer, well, he's his own man. No-one designed him.
It simply doesn't work, and it will never work. It doesn't disprove God, of course, because infinite regress is a possibility, but it sure as hell doesn't prove him. It's simply a group of people finding a termination point that they feel comforted by.
transmogrifier
01-04-2008, 02:10 AM
Dawkins' argument depends on assuming that what we mean by "God" is his own personal nemesis: the Abrahamic, personal god of Genesis and Job. It does not adress the God that many believe in and believe in through arguments other than design.
Such as?
monolith94
01-04-2008, 02:12 AM
We know that matter/energy cannot simply be created out of thin air, so long as the laws of physics are the guidelines. And while it is certainly imprudent to assume that it can only be a god that was a "prime mover" the very fact that at one time there was nothing, and then for no discernible reason there came to be something, allows room for credible speculation and belief.
Spinal
01-04-2008, 02:13 AM
Dawkins' argument depends on assuming that what we mean by "God" is his own personal nemesis: the Abrahamic, personal god of Genesis and Job. It does not adress the God that many believe in and believe in through arguments other than design.
Yes, he acknowledges this in the book.
Raiders
01-04-2008, 02:15 AM
It seems that according to the Iowa caucus, God prefers Huckabee to Paul.
monolith94
01-04-2008, 02:16 AM
Such as?
Well, you could look at Descartes' "Pensees" for one example, as much as it is passed over in this modern era. Certainly, although it is flawed, it is at least slightly more potent in my view than the "design" argument that Dawkins so handily dismisses. In my opinion, the very fact that there is matter to begin with, questions of design aside, is enough to suspect, if not to know with certainty.
shaun
01-04-2008, 02:20 AM
Very glad Obama/Edwards are looking to finish 1/2, though 2nd is essentially a tie with Clinton.
Also, I laughed at Giuliani finishing 6th. Ronnie beat him... yeah.
transmogrifier
01-04-2008, 02:22 AM
Well, you could look at Descartes' "Pensees" for one example, as much as it is passed over in this modern era. Certainly, although it is flawed, it is at least slightly more potent in my view than the "design" argument that Dawkins so handily dismisses. In my opinion, the very fact that there is matter to begin with, questions of design aside, is enough to suspect, if not to know with certainty.
But it's still the same problem. Where did matter come from? God. Where did God come from? Nowhere. He was always there.
What's stopping us cut out the middle man?
If matter can be neither created or destroyed (as is our understanding), surely that implies an everpresence? It just is.
Mysterious Dude
01-04-2008, 02:24 AM
I really fucking hope Huckabee does not become our next president.
Barty
01-04-2008, 02:26 AM
But it's still the same problem. Where did matter come from? God. Where did God come from? Nowhere. He was always there.
Well, that would be the fundamentals of theology of God. God always has, is, and will be. Certainly it doesn't follow the rules of our universe, but since God by definition is above the natural rules of the universe, being the creator of them. The human mind can't necessarily comprehend it, but that doesn't mean it's false (or true for that matter)
If matter can be neither created or destroyed (as is our understanding), surely that implies an everpresence? It just is.
But then, how is this answer satisfying? The universe exists...just cause. Just cause.
transmogrifier
01-04-2008, 02:26 AM
I really fucking hope Huckabee does not become our next president.
President Huckabee? Doesn't have the right ring to it.
transmogrifier
01-04-2008, 02:27 AM
But then, how is this answer satisfying? The universe exists...just cause. Just cause.
Satisfying in what way? I truly don't understand the logic behind the question.
Melville
01-04-2008, 02:27 AM
Quite frankly, this, to me, is the most ridiculous argument that religion offers up. Apparently, God is exempt from having a creator or an origin, but the universe is not. For the life of me, I will never, ever, ever follow that leap in logic. It doesn't make sense. You simply can't argue that:
- the universe is complex
- ergo, it must have a designer that is even more complex
- but, that complex designer, well, he's his own man. No-one designed him.
It simply doesn't work, and it will never work. It doesn't disprove God, of course, because infinite regress is a possibility, but it sure as hell doesn't prove him. It's simply a group of people finding a termination point that they feel comforted by.
Well, you're anthropomorphizing God to an uncomfortable degree by insisting that he must follow the laws that he creates. But, anyway, I agree completely that there is no need to say that the universe has a creator. A lot of arguments for God's existence rely on his essence being existence (i.e. he cannot not exist), but it makes a lot more sense to say that of existence itself (i.e. if anything exists, it's existence itself). However, the whole complexity argument is fairly recent, as far as I know, while the idea of God as the unmoved mover goes back to Aristotle. The traditional argument goes as
- everything has a cause (which is obviously a pretty strong assumption in itself)
- an infinite regress is impossible (I'm not sure why)
- therefore, there must be a first cause
- since that cause is the first cause, it must cause itself
- God is defined to be this self-causing cause (obviously showing that this unmoved mover has the properties of the Christian God is a whole different issue).
Later versions instead said
- everything has a cause
- existence itself must have a cause
- God is defined to be this cause
In both cases, a creator of God would be logically contradictory. These types of arguments don't make much sense to me, because I don't think existence needs a cause, but they are perfectly logical.
transmogrifier
01-04-2008, 02:30 AM
Later versions instead said
- everything has a cause
- existence itself must have a cause
- God is defined to be this cause
In both cases, a creator of God would be logically contradictory. These types of arguments don't make much sense to me, because I don't think existence needs a cause, but they are perfectly logical.
But then, God must not exist in order to not have a cause, based on that second assumption. Argument over. ;)
Barty
01-04-2008, 02:31 AM
Satisfying in what way? I truly don't understand the logic behind the question.
What I mean is that your argument that matter has always existed and somehow, someway, it became this universe is just as logically frustrating to people as accepting a God who has no cause, who just is.
Barty
01-04-2008, 02:33 AM
Later versions instead said
- everything has a cause
- existence itself must have a cause
- God is defined to be this cause
In both cases, a creator of God would be logically contradictory. These types of arguments don't make much sense to me, because I don't think existence needs a cause, but they are perfectly logical.
Or we could say:
Everything that has a beginning has a cause
God does not have a beginning
Therefore God does not have a cause
But then, logical arguments can always be true if structured correctly. So they don't really prove anything.
transmogrifier
01-04-2008, 02:36 AM
What I mean is that your argument that matter has always existed and somehow, someway, it became this universe is just as logically frustrating to people as excepting a God who has no cause, who just is.
No, it's not very satisying in terms of the uncertainty, for sure. However, as far as I'm concerned, it's a more satisfying explanation than the alternative, as it doesn't invoke a completely invented entity to explain it.
I assumed you were asking whether it was satisfying to allow a universe to not have a God, which is essentially meaningless to me.
Barty
01-04-2008, 02:37 AM
No, it's not very satisying in terms of the uncertainty, for sure. However, as far as I'm concerned, it's a more satisfying explanation than the alternative, as it doesn't invoke a completely invented entity to explain it.
You assume the entity was invented, and didn't reveal himself. There's a big difference.
Melville
01-04-2008, 02:37 AM
We know that matter/energy cannot simply be created out of thin air, so long as the laws of physics are the guidelines. And while it is certainly imprudent to assume that it can only be a god that was a "prime mover" the very fact that at one time there was nothing, and then for no discernible reason there came to be something, allows room for credible speculation and belief.
Time is created along with matter. It is nonsensical to ask what came "before" the big bang, since there is no such thing as "before the big bang". The universe, in the big bang model (which is quite likely to be proven wrong at some point, but I'm assuming you're going by it) is a single 4-dimensional geometric object of possible events. There is nothing "outside" it, in either space or time.
But then, God must not exist in order to not have a cause, based on that second assumption. Argument over. ;)
:lol:
(I'm assuming you're just joking... right?)
transmogrifier
01-04-2008, 02:37 AM
Or we could say:
Everything that has a beginning has a cause
God does not have a beginning
Therefore God does not have a cause
But then, logical arguments can always be true if structured correctly. So they don't really prove anything.
Everything that has a beginning has a cause
The universe does not have a beginning
Therefore the universe does not have a cause
:)
transmogrifier
01-04-2008, 02:38 AM
:lol:
(I'm assuming you're just joking... right?)
Well, naturally.
Barty
01-04-2008, 02:39 AM
Everything that has a beginning has a cause
The universe does not have a beginning
Therefore the universe does not have a cause
:)
That is a true logical statement, but in practice; current scientific understanding as well as most religious thought all agree the universe did have a beginning.
Around and round we go. :pritch::pritch::pritch:
monolith94
01-04-2008, 02:41 AM
If matter can be neither created or destroyed (as is our understanding), surely that implies an everpresence? It just is.
You do know that, to the best of our knowledge, space itself is currently expanding at an increasing rate, right?
Spinal
01-04-2008, 02:44 AM
Over 300 proofs of God's existence. (http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm)
Sample:
57. ARGUMENT FROM LONELINESS
(1) Christians say that Jesus is their best friend.
(2) I'm lonely, and I want a best friend.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
Spinal
01-04-2008, 02:47 AM
I like this one too:
249. ARGUMENT FROM POOR TYPING SKILLS
(1) In tihs essae ill demnstrate that gOd exsits in a way tat's so sure thatno athesit can PSOosibly reftue. J will firts dwmonsrtate waht we canaSSUme fo rGod exisnce,,then how wwe can refute anya rgument wihch pretends teh contrrary to eb true,tehn wel'l expose scinetific evidnece thatGod eeexists then we'll cnolcude. yOU will fnid an acurate&up6to6date bibliography no teh page 43 of tihs essay;i Sugegst yu to pritn iths doculent for a mroe confortable raeding.
(2) [Atheist doesn't bother to read it.]
(3) Therefore, God exists.
transmogrifier
01-04-2008, 02:48 AM
You do know that, to the best of our knowledge, space itself is currently expanding at an increasing rate, right?
Yep. Carl Sagan had a great way of looking at that. Paraphrasing, he basically asked us to imagine a 2D universe, where the organisms within it know forward/backwards and side to side, but have no concept of up and down. Now, also imagine that those organismas live on the surface of a balloon. Because this balloon is infinitely big, they are not aware of the curvature. Now imagine what happens if the balloon is inflated - everything will be seen to be moving away from each other, right? But to where? And what happens when the balloon gets too big?
It's a cool idea.
Melville
01-04-2008, 02:51 AM
Or we could say:
Everything that has a beginning has a cause
God does not have a beginning
Therefore God does not have a cause
But then, logical arguments can always be true if structured correctly. So they don't really prove anything.
:eek:
Actually, your argument is wrong: the last line should read "Therefore God might not have a cause", since your first assumption doesn't preclude things with no beginning having a cause. But, regardless, our two arguments have different assumptions and different conclusions. My argument proves that if everything, including existence, must have a cause, then there must be a prime mover. Your argument would prove that if everything that has a beginning has a cause and if God has no beginning (although I'm not sure what you would mean by "beginning" here), then God doesn't necessarily have a cause. Neither argument proves God's existence, since they must both make some initial assumptions, but they do prove something. More importantly, logical arguments in general allow people to communicate clearly by showing what underlying assumptions each person is making, and how those assumptions lead to their conclusions.
That is a true logical statement, but in practice; current scientific understanding as well as most religious thought all agree the universe did have a beginning.
Around and round we go. :pritch::pritch::pritch:
I think we need to form a steering committee to agree on a definition of "beginning".
transmogrifier
01-04-2008, 02:52 AM
You assume the entity was invented, and didn't reveal himself. There's a big difference.
Okay, so now we get to the crux of the matter. To me, there are two different arguments.
One is, was there a creator, any creator? I suspect not, but charitably, anything is possible.
Secondly, if there is a creator, is it one that is directly concerned with human affairs, is responsible for our freedoms and rights, and gives us moral orientation? And this here I would emphatically deny outright, and don't even contemplate as being correct.
Raiders
01-04-2008, 02:57 AM
http://puppetgallery.com/gallery/15083_Lambchop.jpg
Barty
01-04-2008, 02:57 AM
Actually, your argument is wrong: the last line should read "Therefore God might not have a cause", since your first assumption doesn't preclude things with no beginning having a cause. But, regardless, our two arguments have different assumptions and different conclusions. My argument proves that if everything, including existence, must have a cause, then there must be a prime mover. Your argument would prove that if everything that has a beginning has a cause and if God has no beginning (although I'm not sure what you would mean by "beginning" here), then God doesn't necessarily have a cause. Neither argument proves God's existence, since they must both make some initial assumptions, but they do prove something. More importantly, logical arguments in general allow people to communicate clearly by showing what underlying assumptions each person is making, and how those assumptions lead to their conclusions.
Yeah, I realized I didn't word my argument correctly, but at least you understood my point. :lol:
I think we need to form a steering committee to agree on a definition of "beginning".
Well, since I'm working from a Christian perspective I'd have to use the Greek word archē as the definition:
1) beginning, origin
2) the person or thing that commences, the first person or thing in a series, the leader
3) that by which anything begins to be, the origin, the active cause
4) the extremity of a thing
a) of the corners of a sail
5) the first place, principality, rule, magistracy
a) of angels and demons
Barty
01-04-2008, 03:00 AM
Secondly, if there is a creator, is it one that is directly concerned with human affairs, is responsible for our freedoms and rights, and gives us moral orientation? And this here I would emphatically deny outright, and don't even contemplate as being correct.
Well, it's one of the fundamentals of Judaism and Christianity. Man was made in God's image. So, take that point and run with it.
Melville
01-04-2008, 03:01 AM
4) the extremity of a thing
a) of the corners of a sail
Okay, let's agree to this one and see how far we can get.
Barty
01-04-2008, 03:03 AM
Okay, let's agree to this one and see how far we can get.
Can we agree that God doesn't have corners of a sail on him?
Melville
01-04-2008, 03:04 AM
Can we agree that God doesn't have corners of a sail on him?
Agreed. Now we just need to prove that he's the corner of every sail and we're all set.
Ezee E
01-04-2008, 03:05 AM
I have faith in God like I have trust in Science.
jesse
01-04-2008, 03:10 AM
The mere idea of Hillary Clinton as the "agent of change" is simply hilarious. Honestly, I'm at the point where I think considering anybody who might end up in the White House an "agent of change" is a bit naive.
Barty
01-04-2008, 03:30 AM
I think we need a poster on Match-cut who will change things. Who will bring true change to this forum. Who will change the way things are changed. Change the way we look at movies, change the way we argue about God, change the way we post, change the way we use smiley's, change people so that all men are equal of rep. We need an agent of change who will bring true change to this changing forum.
Derek
01-04-2008, 04:41 AM
I think we need a poster on Match-cut who will change things. Who will bring true change to this forum. Who will change the way things are changed. Change the way we look at movies, change the way we argue about God, change the way we post, change the way we use smiley's, change people so that all men are equal of rep. We need an agent of change who will bring true change to this changing forum.
"MatchCut will bear a son, and you shall call his name Iosos, for he will save his people from their sins."
Spinal
01-04-2008, 04:48 AM
Raiders: I don't trust this iosos any further than I can throw him.
KF: Well, with your bad knee Raiders, you shouldn't throw anybody... Its true.
Raiders: What is so dangerous about a character like iosos is he gives good posters bad ideas.
KF: Mmm-hmm.
Raiders: Last thing I need at this point in my career is fifteen hundred iosos disciples running around these message boards. He jeopardizes my ability to effectively moderate this website.
KF: Well, makes you look like an ass is what he does, Raiders.
shaun
01-04-2008, 02:29 PM
I guess this thread is no longer about the primaries, but I just want to point out that the last 4 Republican winners of the Iowa caucus (2 unopposed) and last 3 Democratic winners of the Iowa caucus (1 unopposed) have gone on to win their party's presidential nomination.
Get used to your front runners.
Duncan
01-04-2008, 04:19 PM
Go Obama! And/or Edwards!
MadMan
01-04-2008, 07:17 PM
I think we need a poster on Match-cut who will change things. Who will bring true change to this forum. Who will change the way things are changed. Change the way we look at movies, change the way we argue about God, change the way we post, change the way we use smiley's, change people so that all men are equal of rep. We need an agent of change who will bring true change to this changing forum.I'm all for chaos and anarchy. Who the hell will bring that to the forum? I think I'm the man for the job. I mean come on look at my username ;)
Democrat: Edwards
Republican: Paul
However, I'm a registered Independent, so I can't vote in either primary. :)I was a registered independent and all I had to do to vote in the Iowa caucus was to register as a Democrat, which I did when I got to my local voting place. Maybe primary rules are different....
I know I'm a bit late, but I've been offline too much and thus I didn't see this thread until I got this forum's update in my in box.
Democrat: Obama, no question. He represents not only the best chance for change in this country, but he has articulated and empthesized his views time and time again. The man blows me away every time I hear him speak, and that's something special especially considering he's a politician, although I will admit he does have some rather obvious faults (as do all of the candidates). Edwards populist views disgust me (plus he's a lawyer), Hilary is a corporate establishment candidate whore, and while Richardson is a good choice he doesn't have what it takes to win in November. The rest are either crazy (Kucinich and Gravel), or have already dropped out since they weren't viable candidates anyways (Bieden and Dodd).
Republican: McCain by a small margin. To me he's always been a principled leader who's stuck to his guns even when other assholes (read: Dubya and his cronies) dared to question everything about him and smear him with negative libal campaigning in South Carolina and elsewhere back in 2000. To me him and Thompson and to some extent Paul represent the old Republican party before the damn fundies took over, and that's why if I would have gone to the Republican side yesterday I would have chosen between one of those three. Huckabee and Rudy scare the hell out of me and would be terrible for this country, Mitt strikes me as a guy I wouldn't trust with anything (he always sounds and looks like a used car salesman) and the rest are right wingers who have no chance in hell of winning.
Raiders: I don't trust this iosos any further than I can throw him.
KF: Well, with your bad knee Raiders, you shouldn't throw anybody... Its true.
Raiders: What is so dangerous about a character like iosos is he gives good posters bad ideas.
KF: Mmm-hmm.
Raiders: Last thing I need at this point in my career is fifteen hundred iosos disciples running around these message boards. He jeopardizes my ability to effectively moderate this website.
KF: Well, makes you look like an ass is what he does, Raiders.Hilarious.
Oh and on a final note, one of my fellow Obama supporters told me last night that the Dems are holding off on attacking Huckabee for now because they're hoping he gets the nomination. Then they'll tear him to pieces-I've looked at his record, his glaring lack of any understanding of foreign policy issues, and some of the things he's done as governor of Arkansas and I agree. However I fear the South will once again select us another idiotic leader lacking the ability to properly handle the problems facing this nation. Don't mind me though, I'm a naturally cynical.
Rowland
01-04-2008, 07:23 PM
Obama, no question. He represents not only the best chance for change in this countryAt the very least, he has successfully marketed himself as such. Edwards has the more revolutionary platforms, so he represents the best realistic chance for change, but Obama has him beat in the symbol department. As such, Obama will probably get the nomination. At least he's a lot better than Clinton, and he could do wonders for our image on a national scale.
Milky Joe
01-04-2008, 07:47 PM
What exactly is so disgusting about having populist views?
Rowland
01-04-2008, 07:52 PM
What exactly is so disgusting about having populist views?Populist -> Communist -> Hippie -> Dirty Feet
*shrug*
MadMan
01-04-2008, 07:53 PM
What exactly is so disgusting about having populist views?I find them annoying for one (I'm more center-right than anything else), and smacking of a cheap way to gain votes than really standing for actual change. Anyways my biggest beef with many of the candidates (even Obama) is that they're proposing all of these things but they haven't mentioned how the hell we are going to pay for them. Yikes.
MadMan
01-04-2008, 07:54 PM
Populist -> Communist -> Hippie -> Dirty Feet
*shrug*Exactly ;)
Milky Joe
01-04-2008, 08:01 PM
I find them annoying for one (I'm more center-right than anything else)
oh.
Rowland
01-04-2008, 08:05 PM
Exactly ;)I was just kidding of course -- I'd probably label myself a populist. But I'm glad I could be of assistance. I know how you righties think. :P
shaun
01-04-2008, 08:23 PM
they're proposing all of these things but they haven't mentioned how the hell we are going to pay for them. Yikes.We have careers to think about here. A politician who comes out and says that they plan on taking more money out of your paycheck is probably only gunning for the hardcore socialist vote.
MadMan
01-04-2008, 08:24 PM
oh.Yes. That. I'm one of those creatures. Scary! ;)
I was just kidding of course -- I'd probably label myself a populist. But I'm glad I could be of assistance. I know how you righties think. :PHeh. I was half joking....half serious. I would probably be more right wing if the damn Republican party was geared more to what it used to be: more concerned with economic policy and limiting government. I may be pro-life but I don't really care about social issues, and I really don't think the government should interfer with those.
Milky Joe
01-04-2008, 08:47 PM
Yes. That. I'm one of those creatures. Scary! ;)
Heh. I was half joking....half serious. I would probably be more right wing if the damn Republican party was geared more to what it used to be: more concerned with economic policy and limiting government. I may be pro-life but I don't really care about social issues, and I really don't think the government should interfer with those.
It would seem from this that Ron Paul is exactly what you're looking for, then! I don't know why you say that Paul only "to some extent" resembles the old Republican party, because he is the total embodiment of the old republican party.
lovejuice
01-04-2008, 09:45 PM
i don't believe in non-strategic voting so either hillary or obama for dem.
i'm not a us citizen though. :|
i'm probably late for the science debate, but i always think the "unreliability" and the "changing nature" of science is out-of-proportionally over-stated. that is, true to my acamedic career, i have a full faith in science.
on the other hand, as far as i know, science haven't yet disprove the existence of god or jesus.
Melville
01-04-2008, 10:15 PM
i'm probably late for the science debate, but i always think the "unreliability" and the "changing nature" of science is out-of-proportionally over-stated. that is, true to my acamedic career, i have a full faith in science.
Strangely, my academic career had something of the opposite effect, as you probably gathered from my posts.
Although, regarding KF's statements about heart attacks and oxygen, I should have noted that most "scientific" results in medicine would be considered completely inconclusive in most hard science fields.
lovejuice
01-05-2008, 12:28 AM
All of these facts make it somewhat silly to have "faith" in the absolute validity of science (which certainly doesn't stop people from having that faith). But they also make science an excellent tool for discovering the behavior of the natural world.
i actually agree with you here, so allow me to rephrase what i did say. perhaps, yes, when talking about science, "faith" is a difficult word since by itself science always admit the possibility of being wrong. yet the degree to which people like to find fault with science seems to me out of proportion.
human nature likes to point finger to an authority, and nowaday science seems to represent one for truth. whenever a new scientific fact is published, it always comes with how this new -- and more correct fact -- is contradict to the old one. and people seems to rejoice by the fact that we, scientists, too can be wrong.
in my opinion, science does not progress by finding fault with its earlier model. not to disprove your forefather's, or even improve upon their idea. more hegelian in a sense that truth and untruth(?) dialectially evolve around one another.
for a more concrete argument, newtonian physics is not replaced by einstein's. it's still correct within its realm. to quote it as a failure of 18th century physics is, to me, missing the point.
'tis, i think, the different between pure and applied science. in engineer, it's possible for models to replace one another. the new one is more efficient qua better or more correct than the old one. perhaps regarding KF's comment, medicine is more applied than pure science.
Melville
01-05-2008, 04:36 AM
i actually agree with you here, so allow me to rephrase what i did say. perhaps, yes, when talking about science, "faith" is a difficult word since by itself science always admit the possibility of being wrong. yet the degree to which people like to find fault with science seems to me out of proportion.
human nature likes to point finger to an authority, and nowaday science seems to represent one for truth. whenever a new scientific fact is published, it always comes with how this new -- and more correct fact -- is contradict to the old one. and people seems to rejoice by the fact that we, scientists, too can be wrong.
in my opinion, science does not progress by finding fault with its earlier model. not to disprove your forefather's, or even improve upon their idea. more hegelian in a sense that truth and untruth(?) dialectially evolve around one another.
for a more concrete argument, newtonian physics is not replaced by einstein's. it's still correct within its realm. to quote it as a failure of 18th century physics is, to me, missing the point.
'tis, i think, the different between pure and applied science. in engineer, it's possible for models to replace one another. the new one is more efficient qua better or more correct than the old one. perhaps regarding KF's comment, medicine is more applied than pure science.
Ah, so we agree completely. It boggles my mind when people (especially physicists) treat scientific theories as some kind of absolute description of the world. It always seems to lead to popular science writers announcing that some new theory is going to drastically change science's absolute description, and to the nuts in Jesus Camp criticizing science for being unable to irrefutably prove its description. Both views misunderstand the way that science works and the kind of description that it offers.
Milky Joe
01-05-2008, 05:17 PM
As per his standard, Bill Moyers conducts an absolutely fantastic interview with Ron Paul. Watch it here. (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01042008/watch2.html)
Milky Joe
01-05-2008, 11:29 PM
Is anyone watching this Republican debate? It's just... amazing. Incredible to watch.
Rowland
01-06-2008, 12:45 AM
Is anyone watching this Republican debate? It's just... amazing. Incredible to watch.
I can't stomach that stuff. Why, what's going on?
Ron Paul pwnage I'd imagine.
Milky Joe
01-06-2008, 03:49 AM
Amazing. ABC makes a big deal about how they're using Facebook to allow people to comment in real time and ask them what they think, and when 41% of those people declare that Ron Paul was the "most presidential" of the Republican side, they neglect to even mention it.
Rowland
01-06-2008, 07:04 PM
Man, I wish I had watched the Democratic debate. Edwards defends Obama, bitch slaps Clinton.
(http://2parse.com/?p=186)
After the debate, Ron Paul entered the spin room himself. (http://www.nyobserver.com/2008/ron-paul-spins-alone) Ron Paul to host counter-debate in response to Fox excluding him from theirs.
(http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/new-hampshire-gop-backs-out-of-fox-forum/)
Sycophant
01-06-2008, 07:20 PM
Man, I wish I had watched the Democratic debate. Edwards defends Obama, bitch slaps Clinton.
(http://2parse.com/?p=186)
Awesome. I don't know if either would settle for shotgun, but I'm increasingly convinced we that what I really want is an Edwards-Obama or Obama-Edwards ticket.
shaun
01-06-2008, 07:45 PM
Awesome. I don't know if either would settle for shotgun, but I'm increasingly convinced we that what I really want is an Edwards-Obama or Obama-Edwards ticket.Watching the debate almost convinced me that they have a deal in place to destroy Hillary. Either a spot on the ticket of whomever wins the nomination or more likely they both realize that it's best for everyone to keep her in 3rd place.
Nothing would make me happier than to have Clinton's corporate and media backed candidacy to go down in flames.
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20080106/capt.d5fcdbb6fd2540398591513e2 734100f.democrats_rdp_nhda114. jpg
Ezee E
01-06-2008, 07:53 PM
It's like The Wire!
Rowland
01-06-2008, 07:58 PM
Ron Paul: A Man Among Boys. What's at stake, and why his "crazy talk" may actually be the most sane. (http://www.nolanchart.com/article764.html)
Mr. Valentine
01-06-2008, 08:04 PM
Ron Paul: A Man Among Boys. What's at stake, and why his "crazy talk" may actually be the most sane. (http://www.nolanchart.com/article764.html)
that was actually a really good article but him having a good take on one issue doesn't do anything to me to overlook the issues i disagree with him on.
Milky Joe
01-06-2008, 11:07 PM
that was actually a really good article but him having a good take on one issue doesn't do anything to me to overlook the issues i disagree with him on.
some issues matter more than others.
In other news, Washington Post Calls for Bush-Cheney impeachment (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/04/AR2008010404308.html?hpid=opin ionsbox1)
More importantly:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3137695.ece
Spinal
01-07-2008, 12:05 AM
In other news, Washington Post Calls for Bush-Cheney impeachment (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/04/AR2008010404308.html?hpid=opin ionsbox1)
Well, it's not really surprising George McGovern feels that way.
Mysterious Dude
01-07-2008, 12:48 AM
Reading Ron Paul's opposition to the war (http://www.antiwar.com/paul/paul51.html) from 2002 made me realize that congress has no excuse for not realizing that the war was a terrible idea and utterly unjustified.
Rowland
01-07-2008, 03:13 PM
Huckabee: "When we become believers, it's as if we have signed up to be part of God's Army, to be soldiers for Christ." Likening service to God to service in the military, Huckabee said "there is suffering in the conditioning for battle" and "you obey the orders." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/06/AR2008010602261_pf.html)
Sycophant
01-07-2008, 03:33 PM
It really seems to me that Huckabee is an utter flash in the pan. Four weeks ago, people were barely talking about him and in another four weeks eveyrone is going to be glad they're no longer talking about him or regretting they have to run him. I don't think he stands a chance in hell in an actual presidential campaign. That he's the flavor of the moment during this first batch of primaries isn't going to amount to much, ultimately, unless this fervor continues long enough for the Republicans to have a major, dreadful hangover realization in a few weeks.
But then who do the Republicans have that stands as a truly viable candidate? McCain?
Some friends and I have promised each other that we're going to move to New Zealand if Huckabee becomes president.
Benny Profane
01-07-2008, 04:08 PM
Reminds me of a documentary I watched a few days ago...Jesus Camp.
Mysterious Dude
01-07-2008, 04:27 PM
I would just like to say that if John Kerry is a flip-flopper, then McCain and Romney are fucking schizophrenic.
Sycophant
01-07-2008, 04:36 PM
I would just like to say that if John Kerry is a flip-flopper, then McCain and Romney are fucking schizophrenic.
Let this be a warning to all presidential aspirants: if you're going to totally pander to your imagined ideal demographic, at least start the process of building up the character you're going to run as before you start your bid... make it your career.
shaun
01-07-2008, 04:45 PM
That's what we get for voting in politicians who base their positions on which race they want to win. In order to win as governor in a very democratic state, he needed broad appeal. To get the repub nomination he needs the polar opposite. If he actually does get the nom, you'll see views head back toward the center again.
Typical pol behavior and most of them do it... doesn't make it any less disgusting. Plus, I don't trust anyone who bleaches their teeth.
Sycophant
01-07-2008, 04:52 PM
The other night my friends and I were musing how much Mitt Romney looks like "Mr. President" or "President Jones" from any number of TV serials or high-octane thrillers.
Yxklyx
01-07-2008, 08:17 PM
Looking on the bright side - whoever gets elected can't be as bad as the current one right?
transmogrifier
01-07-2008, 09:25 PM
Some friends and I have promised each other that we're going to move to New Zealand if Huckabee becomes president.
What makes you think we'll let you in?
:)
MadMan
01-07-2008, 09:51 PM
Looking on the bright side - whoever gets elected can't be as bad as the current one right?I've heard that before.....
What makes you think we'll let you in?
:)Yeah we've pissed off the world so much that no other country wants us. I doubt anyone of us can even get into Mexico or Canada at this point.
Looking on the bright side - whoever gets elected can't be as bad as the current one right?
If Huckabee gets in, then I can guarantee all white males will be fine. Everyone else is fucked.
Spinal
01-07-2008, 11:02 PM
If Huckabee gets in, then I can guarantee all white males will be fine. Everyone else is fucked.
You mean white Christian males, right?
You mean white Christian males, right?
Right, but not the Episcopalians and their gay bishops.
MadMan
01-08-2008, 12:59 AM
You mean white Christian males, right?Dude I'm a white Christian male and I bet I'll still be screwed if that man is elected. Well mainly because I'm somewhat secular....and not one of them damn fundies. I have a mind of my own and I'm sure that'll result in me getting put in one of those "re-education camps." Or cause me to become an underground rebel fighter man. That'd be cool. Well in the movies its cool. Heh.
chrisnu
01-09-2008, 12:00 AM
Here's an easy online poll, regarding which candidate's views most coincide with your own. It's too simple, but still interesting:
http://tinyurl.com/2r37yl
You agree most with:
John Edwards (D)
I got Edwards too, but if you eliminate the "don't knows" from the results, I am more on par with Obama.
Sycophant
01-09-2008, 12:25 AM
I got Edwards. Surprisingly Clinton came in second for me, a surprising distance ahead of Obama. Huh.
Milky Joe
01-09-2008, 12:52 AM
This is only tangentially related, but... 1988 Ron Paul owns fat kid on national televsion. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88REf0tjZHo)
Ezee E
01-09-2008, 02:01 AM
Edwards as well. Barack was second. Huckabee third (?). Hilary fourth.
transmogrifier
01-09-2008, 02:11 AM
Clinton then Obama then a bit of a gap to Edwards.
I had a few I Don't Knows, natch.
Melville
01-09-2008, 02:20 AM
Edwards then Clinton then Obama, but all three were very close together and way ahead of anybody else.
shaun
01-09-2008, 02:33 AM
I'm officially not voting for John Edwards.
He played that wretched "This Is Our Country" song that has polluted football watching for the past 2 years before his speech. We're done.
Milky Joe
01-09-2008, 02:57 AM
Yeah, I'm also done with John Edwards. It's obvious he isn't going to beat either Obama or Hillary, and I have a sneaking suspicion that if he wins, it wouldn't actually be that different from an Obama or Hillary win anyway, despite his fine-tuned oratorical skills. I'm officially voting for Ron Paul, or not at all.
Mysterious Dude
01-09-2008, 03:15 AM
Here's an easy online poll, regarding which candidate's views most coincide with your own. It's too simple, but still interesting:
http://tinyurl.com/2r37yl
I got a tie between Obama and Hillary.
I was a little confused by the wording of some of those things, especially:
The Patriot Act serves to fight terrorism. Extra measures should be taken to further protect citizens’ privacy.Aren't those two different sentences?
Ezee E
01-09-2008, 03:25 AM
Aren't those two different sentences?
Yeah. I answered I Don't Know on that one.
D_Davis
01-09-2008, 03:36 AM
You mean white Christian males, right?
White, fake-Christian, males.
How do you answer a question like "The new president must promise to attack Iran only with the express permission of the Congress."
What if I don't think the president should promise to attack Iran? What if I think the president shouldn't attack Iran at all?
Spinal
01-09-2008, 03:43 AM
How do you answer a question like "The new president must promise to attack Iran only with the express permission of the Congress."
What if I don't think the president should promise to attack Iran? What if I think the president shouldn't attack Iran at all?
Agreed. Getting permission would be a step up, but it's really not the heart of the matter.
I ended up with:
1. Edwards
2. Clinton
3. Obama
4. a buncha loonies
D_Davis
01-09-2008, 03:53 AM
How do you answer a question like "The new president must promise to attack Iran only with the express permission of the Congress."
What if I don't think the president should promise to attack Iran? What if I think the president shouldn't attack Iran at all?
Exactly. Or the one about the death penalty. Do I believe it should be harder to sentence someone to death? I sure do: it should be impossible.
D_Davis
01-09-2008, 03:54 AM
1. Edwards
2. Clinton
3. Obama
4. a buncha loonies
This was mine too. Although it looked as if Clinton and Obama were tied.
D_Davis
01-09-2008, 03:55 AM
How about this:
The new president should not attack anyone, ever. Unless it is a one-on-one televised pay-per-event.
Ivan Drago
01-09-2008, 03:56 AM
Democrat: Barack Obama
Republican: Rudy Giuliani
My write-in vote: Stephen Colbert
D_Davis
01-09-2008, 03:59 AM
I'll probably end up writing in, "None of the above."
I don't really like any of the candidates, and I don't believe in voting for the evil of two lessers.
We should have a "do over" box to check.
Milky Joe
01-09-2008, 04:05 AM
What if I don't think the president should promise to attack Iran? What if I think the president shouldn't attack Iran at all?
In this situation, you would... vote for Ron Paul!
Barty
01-09-2008, 06:32 AM
1. Fred Thompson
2. Mitt Romney
3. Rudy Giuliani
4. Mike Huckabee
5. John McCain
6. Hillary Clinton
7. Barack Obama
8. John Edwards
Raiders
01-09-2008, 12:42 PM
1. Fred Thompson
2. Mitt Romney
3. Rudy Giuliani
4. Mike Huckabee
5. John McCain
6. Hillary Clinton
7. Barack Obama
8. John Edwards
:lol:
That is the exact inverse of mine.
shaun
01-09-2008, 02:29 PM
That poll thing sort of sucks. Here's one written by someone with English as a first language and without such black/white questioning.
http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460
Dodd
Kucinich
Obama
lemon
01-09-2008, 02:50 PM
Has anyone seen these Ron Paul Newsletters that were published in the 80's and 90's. I haven't read them, but they apparently are anti-gay, racist, pro-confederacy, support right-wing militia's, and support various conspiracy theories. They've been out there for a while, but just recently there has been another big hub-bub about them. Ron Paul's defense is that they were ghost written by someone else and that he never read over them before they were released. I'm not really sure what I believe yet, but I have no idea how he thinks he can win the presidency with these things out in the public (granted they have been public for about 20 years).
If Ron Paul does make it far into the primaries he is going to get torn apart by the mainstream media for these, because the mainstream media obviously hates him. Mass media can absolutely destroy his campaign at will with these. I thought he was an outside shot before... but now I think this gives a bad name to libertarians.
Here is hte link BTW
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca
bac0n
01-09-2008, 02:52 PM
I should show that one presidential survey to my wife, who is a professional evaluation specialist with an advanced degree. She'd probably flip her lid at how loaded and misleading some of those questions are. Regardless, here are my results:
Hillary Clinton (D)
John Edwards (D)
Barack Obama (D)
John McCain (R)
Rudy Giuliani (R)
Mike Huckabee (R)
Fred Thompson (R)
Mitt Romney (R)
Sycophant
01-09-2008, 04:16 PM
Here is hte link BTW
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca
Regardless of whether or not these were ghostwritten, they went out under his name and no politician gets a pass for stuff done by his staff in his name.
I'm not doubting the sincerity of all of his followers' belief in his policy stances. However, I do believe that many, many of his supporters would abandon him if they had a clue about his history and opinions and didn't just think the LOVE in REVOLUTION was fun and punk rock.
Meanwhile, after this New Hampshire primary, I'm less sure about how both races are going to turn out. Guess we'll see how the next couple go.
Benny Profane
01-09-2008, 04:22 PM
I was wondering why the stormfront.org crowd was backing Paul. I guess this answers it.
shaun
01-09-2008, 04:26 PM
I haven't read them, but they apparently are anti-gay, racist, pro-confederacy, support right-wing militia's, and support various conspiracy theories.Meh. I haven't read them but those labels are pretty slanted.
Arguing against affirmative action or being against hate crime legislation aren't inherently 'racist' or 'anti-gay' positions. It's a stance of actually affording the same opportunities to all instead of protecting certain subsets of the population. They can just as easily be labeled progressive positions.
"support for right wing militias" doesn't mean anything without context. If his support was for their rights to assemble and bear arms, then it's perfectly in line with what the Constitution dictates. Not a negative.
Pro-Confederacy - probably an argument for States rights, blah blah... standard Constitution fare.
Sycophant
01-09-2008, 04:28 PM
Paul's newsletters referenced a coming "race war." Whoever says that loses.
shaun
01-09-2008, 04:35 PM
Paul's newsletters referenced a coming "race war." Whoever says that loses.Yep. I can't defend that.
D_Davis
01-09-2008, 04:42 PM
Paul's newsletters referenced a coming "race war." Whoever says that loses.
The only race war we have to fear is the one manufactured by the politicians and the media.
Sycophant
01-09-2008, 04:50 PM
The only race war we have to fear is the one manufactured by the politicians and the media.I don't know. I occasionally get worried about the race war heralded by various groups (usually from my home state of Idaho) who think there'll be a race war.
D_Davis
01-09-2008, 04:51 PM
I don't know. I occasionally get worried about the race war heralded by various groups (usually from my home state of Idaho) who think there'll be a race war.
It's an echo chamber of the one being manufactured.
lemon
01-09-2008, 05:03 PM
It speaks terribly for Ron Paul that he refused to admit who the author of the article was. This could have been solved 20 years ago if the author of the articles had come out and said, "I wrote these without Ron Paul's knowledge, it is all on my shoulders." Sort of seems like a cover up.
He's trying to become the freaking president of the united states, you'd think he'd have known that he'd need more than a "I had no idea" excuse to deal with this. Pretty mind boggling.
I was a supporter of Ron Paul because I favor small federal government and civil liberties... but this shows a lack of any good judgement. Obama has my vote now.
Sycophant
01-09-2008, 05:33 PM
Is there any place where Edwards seems to have a lead? It seems to me that sooner or later, Edwards or Obama's going to have to drop out and the majority of the one's votes are going to go to the other, with a minimal number going to Clinton. Before Super Duper Tuesday?
Sycophant
01-09-2008, 05:50 PM
L. O. L.
Some caller on the radio was just talking about not supporting candidates she sees as being in the race for self-serving (or as she put it "self-seeking"--I trust the meaning's about the same) reasons. That's hilarious.
shaun
01-09-2008, 06:08 PM
That's hilarious.Awesome. That would exclude her from voting for pretty much every politician ever.
Milky Joe
01-09-2008, 06:43 PM
January 8, 2008 5:28 am EST
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:
“The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.
“In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’
“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.
“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”
Milky Joe
01-09-2008, 06:47 PM
Also: Allegations (http://www.product-reviews.net/2008/01/09/new-hampshire-vote-fraud-confirmed-ron-paul-votes-not-counted/) of voter fraud (http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5530) coming in from New Hampshire.
bac0n
01-09-2008, 06:59 PM
Also: Allegations (http://www.product-reviews.net/2008/01/09/new-hampshire-vote-fraud-confirmed-ron-paul-votes-not-counted/) of voter fraud (http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5530) coming in from New Hampshire.
Which probably explains why George W Bush came in third place in the Republican Caucus. *rimshot*
Raiders
01-10-2008, 09:07 PM
Can anyone explain unpledged delegates to me? I can't figure out why Hilary Clinton has so many. I used to think the Democratic party had these things called superdelegates.
Milky Joe
01-10-2008, 11:02 PM
It's important that people see this, Ron Paul responding directly to these tired racism allegations on CNN:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7FwULXnM_E part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvzsiESqVss part 2
He gets fired up. I love it when he gets fired up.
shaun
01-11-2008, 12:38 AM
Can anyone explain unpledged delegates to me? I can't figure out why Hilary Clinton has so many. I used to think the Democratic party had these things called superdelegates.Try this link and click on 'Who are delegates?'...
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/02/delegate.explainer/index.html
Rowland
01-11-2008, 01:01 AM
The press is firebombing Paul with these allegations. I just caught a glimpse of CNN airing his self-defense with "RON PAUL'S RANTINGS" framing the bottom of the screen in bold.
Milky Joe
01-11-2008, 01:26 AM
Dennis Kucinich asks for a recount in New Hampshire (http://www.dennis4president.com/go/homepage-items/kucinich-asks-for-new-hampshire-recount-in-the-interest-of-election-integrity/)
"“I am not making this request in the expectation that a recount will significantly affect the number of votes that were cast on my behalf,” Kucinich stressed in a letter to Secretary of State William M. Gardner. But, “Serious and credible reports, allegations, and rumors have surfaced in the past few days…It is imperative that these questions be addressed in the interest of public confidence in the integrity of the election process and the election machinery – not just in New Hampshire, but in every other state that conducts a primary election.”
Also, the reports, allegations, and rumors regarding possible vote-count irregularities have been further fueled by the stunning disparities between various “independent” pre-election polls and the actual election results," Kucinich wrote. "The integrity, credibility, and value of independent polling are separate issues, but they appear to be relevant in the context of New Hampshire’s votes."
He added, “Ever since the 2000 election – and even before – the American people have been losing faith in the belief that their votes were actually counted. This recount isn’t about who won 39% of 36% or even 1%. It’s about establishing whether 100% of the voters had 100% of their votes counted exactly the way they cast them.”
Rowland
01-11-2008, 06:45 PM
Ron Paul bitch slaps Fox at South Carolina debate while the other candidates smugly laugh at him (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PqL2hotdbM)
Look at McCain. What a childish, undignified prick. Yeah, keep laughing, asshole.
And just to add injury to insult, Fox is editing this out of the rebroadcastings of this debate.
Qrazy
01-11-2008, 07:57 PM
Everything that has a beginning has a cause
The universe does not have a beginning
Therefore the universe does not have a cause
:)
All y'all assume too much when you assume the existent reality of causality.
Qrazy
01-11-2008, 08:00 PM
Most atheists use science and/or logic as the crux of their argument against the existence of God. It still requires an abstract form of faith in that science and that logic. It was developed by man, no? Isn't it fallible? And for all that scientific advancement, has any scientist been able to prove without a doubt that God doesn't exist?
It may not be the same type of faith, but faith still seems to be prevalent in the beliefs of an atheist.
Faith and induction are not the same thing. Which is not to say that faith is valueless, it is of great value. I wish I had more of it.
Qrazy
01-11-2008, 08:08 PM
Well, you could look at Descartes' "Pensees" for one example, as much as it is passed over in this modern era. Certainly, although it is flawed, it is at least slightly more potent in my view than the "design" argument that Dawkins so handily dismisses. In my opinion, the very fact that there is matter to begin with, questions of design aside, is enough to suspect, if not to know with certainty.
To know a thing with certainty is to misunderstand it entirely.
I like to be cryptic. It makes me feel like a big man.
Sycophant
01-11-2008, 08:24 PM
To know a thing with certainty is to misunderstand it entirely.
I like to be cryptic. It makes me feel like a big man.
I was just thinking to myself, "That Qrazy. He sure can be cryptic. What a big man." Then I swooned with envy.
Then I clicked the spoiler button and cried.
Qrazy
01-11-2008, 08:26 PM
I was just thinking to myself, "That Qrazy. He sure can be cryptic. What a big man." Then I swooned with envy.
Then I clicked the spoiler button and cried.
*cracks knuckles*
Ahhh mission accomplished.
MadMan
01-11-2008, 08:27 PM
Ron Paul bitch slaps Fox at South Carolina debate while the other candidates smugly laugh at him (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PqL2hotdbM)
Look at McCain. What a childish, undignified prick. Yeah, keep laughing, asshole.
And just to add injury to insult, Fox is editing this out of the rebroadcastings of this debate.Yikes. All I can say is that partly because of Sicko, which I viewed recently, and a shift in my views will make it very unlikely that I will vote Republican in November. Hilary being the Democratic candidate and anyone but McCain or Paul being the Republican candidate would cause me to vote third party.
Also: Allegations (http://www.product-reviews.net/2008/01/09/new-hampshire-vote-fraud-confirmed-ron-paul-votes-not-counted/) of voter fraud (http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5530) coming in from New Hampshire.I fucking hate those Diebold bastards. They are one of the greatest threats to our democracy. Also call me jaded and cynical but I'm not surprised that voter fraud is happening so early. Too many forget that questionable voting has swang many an election...just look at how the mob and the Kennedys swang the vote towards JFK back in 1960. Or of course the Florida mess of 2000.
Spinal
01-11-2008, 08:34 PM
Ron Paul bitch slaps Fox at South Carolina debate while the other candidates smugly laugh at him (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PqL2hotdbM)
Look at McCain. What a childish, undignified prick. Yeah, keep laughing, asshole.
And just to add injury to insult, Fox is editing this out of the rebroadcastings of this debate.
The moderator was pretty smug too. I think it's awful to try to label someone unelectable in the midst of a debate. That's not a moderator's job. Not a guy I'd vote for, but good for him. Love his "am-I-taking-crazy-pills" line of reasoning.
Qrazy
01-11-2008, 08:40 PM
I fucking hate those Diebold bastards. They are one of the greatest threats to our democracy. Also call me jaded and cynical but I'm not surprised that voter fraud is happening so early. Too many forget that questionable voting has swang many an election...just look at how the mob and the Kennedys swang the vote towards JFK back in 1960. Or of course the Florida mess of 2000.
I find the American love affair with youthful deaths endlessly fascination. I mean JFK, James Dean, Marilyn Monroe... who were these people really?
Dean - An angsty, whiny, malcontent and social misfit.
Monroe - Dumb blonde with neurological damage leading to lip and eye spasms.
JFK - Thief, Infidelitor, Pig Bay Blunderer and Vietnam instigator.
What's that you say? I'm being needlessly reductionist? Well I'm not out of order, you're out of order! The whole freakin' system is out of order. You want the truth? You want the truth? You can't handle the truth! Cause when you reach over and put your hand into a pile of goo, that was your best friend's face! You'll know what to do. Forget it Marge, it's Chinatown!
Qrazy
01-11-2008, 08:45 PM
The moderator was pretty smug too. I think it's awful to try to label someone unelectable in the midst of a debate. That's not a moderator's job. Not a guy I'd vote for, but good for him. Love his "am-I-taking-crazy-pills" line of reasoning.
Someone photoshop Will Ferrell's Zoolander hair onto Ron Paul please.
Melville
01-11-2008, 08:56 PM
All y'all assume too much when you assume the existent reality of causality.
Are you saying that there is no necessary reason why my tongue remains a tongue and doesn't become a centipede, why an eyeball doesn't suddenly form on my shoulder, why the forest doesn't swarm into the city and butcher its residents? 'Cause I heard somebody say that one time.
Faith and induction are not the same thing. Which is not to say that faith is valueless, it is of great value. I wish I had more of it.
But he's not saying faith and induction are the same thing; he's saying faith and faith in induction are the same thing.
To know a thing with certainty is to misunderstand it entirely.
That much is obvious.
I like to be cryptic. It makes me feel like a big man.
I find your crypticism unconvincing. All your comments are philosophically transparent. I suggest reading more Zen koans or looking into purchasing an electrified crypticizing machine.
Qrazy
01-11-2008, 10:12 PM
Are you saying that there is no necessary reason why my tongue remains a tongue and doesn't become a centipede, why an eyeball doesn't suddenly form on my shoulder, why the forest doesn't swarm into the city and butcher its residents? 'Cause I heard somebody say that one time.
Hume
"It is confessed, that the utmost effort of human reason is to reduce the principles, productive of natural phenomena, to a greater simplicity, and to resolve the many particular effects into a few general causes. But as to the causes of these general causes, we should in vain attempt their discovery. These ultimate springs and principles are totally shut up from human curiosity and enquiry."
An Enquiry Chapter 26.
Burke
"Hume was certainly correct in contending that there is no purely empirical evidence for concepts like causality, power, necessary connection!"
Grammar of Motives 183.
But he's not saying faith and induction are the same thing; he's saying faith and faith in induction are the same thing.
I chose to write induction because today I am particularly fond of that method of inquiry, but before you force me into defending it at the expense of deduction, which is something I have no interest in doing, let us first amend your statement to better approximate what KF was actually claiming.
But he's not saying faith and reason are the same thing; he's saying faith and faith in reason are the same thing.
I would have no qualms with his claim if he had meant that faith and faith in pure reason yield similar dilemmas, but he opted for the wider claim (although never stated explicitly). He claimed that faith, or let's substitute trust here, because that is the definition of faith we are utilizing... he claimed that trust in God was the same thing as trust in reason. It is not. Aside from the fact that the differences between the two types of 'leaps of trust' are immense, there is another reason why the term trust is not synonymous in both instances. To trust reason is not to trust blindly or absolutely to a pure logical framework. It is reasonable for KF to point out that blind faith in logic is a mistake. However, there is a difference between reason and logic. Trust in reason allows us to question and critique the validity of logic. Recognizing the limitations of reason, and even the value of faith, is part of reason.
That much is obvious.
Please my liege, the light of your transcendence blinds me!
I find your crypticism unconvincing. All your comments are philosophically transparent. I suggest reading more Zen koans or looking into purchasing an electrified crypticizing machine.
Check the rhetoric in the bin at the door next to the electrified crypticizing machine. It lacks punch and I like punch with my rhetoric, spiked punch.
Melville
01-12-2008, 01:12 AM
Hume
"It is confessed, that the utmost effort of human reason is to reduce the principles, productive of natural phenomena, to a greater simplicity, and to resolve the many particular effects into a few general causes. But as to the causes of these general causes, we should in vain attempt their discovery. These ultimate springs and principles are totally shut up from human curiosity and enquiry."
An Enquiry Chapter 26.
Burke
"Hume was certainly correct in contending that there is no purely empirical evidence for concepts like causality, power, necessary connection!"
Grammar of Motives 183.
There's no need to get all quotey. I wasn't questioning your questioning of the assumption of causality—indeed, I already questioned that assumption when I outlined the traditional proof of God's existence. I was just jokingly referring to Nausea, in which the centipede-tongue and the walking forest exemplify the narrator's conviction that there is no essential reason for things to behave causally. What I lack in crypticness I make up for with obscurity.
I would have no qualms with his claim if he had meant that faith and faith in pure reason yield similar dilemmas, but he opted for the wider claim (although never stated explicitly). He claimed that faith, or let's substitute trust here, because that is the definition of faith we are utilizing... he claimed that trust in God was the same thing as trust in reason. It is not. Aside from the fact that the differences between the two types of 'leaps of trust' are immense, there is another reason why the term trust is not synonymous in both instances. To trust reason is not to trust blindly or absolutely to a pure logical framework. It is reasonable for KF to point out that blind faith in logic is a mistake. However, there is a difference between reason and logic. Trust in reason allows us to question and critique the validity of logic. Recognizing the limitations of reason, and even the value of faith, is part of reason.
You're evidently inferring a different claim from KF's statements than I did. He was talking specifically about people disbelieving in God because of their faith in the conclusions of science, which made me think he was referring to having faith in the conclusions of specific inductive and deductive reasonings, not in humanity's general capacity for reason.
Please my liege, the light of your transcendence blinds me!
Don't blame me for your visual impairment.
Check the rhetoric in the bin at the door next to the electrified crypticizing machine. It lacks punch and I like punch with my rhetoric, spiked punch.
Sorry, I'm a dedicated teetotaler. Since your comments made points that I really thought were obvious, and since you ended them with self-denigrating jest, I thought a little more jestful denigration would be appropriate. Don't blame me for actually understanding what you're talking about.
Qrazy
01-12-2008, 01:43 AM
There's no need to get all quotey. I wasn't questioning your questioning of the assumption of causality—indeed, I already questioned that assumption when I outlined the traditional proof of God's existence. I was just jokingly referring to Nausea, in which the centipede-tongue and the walking forest exemplify the narrator's conviction that there is no essential reason for things to behave causally. What I lack in crypticness I make up for with obscurity.
You're evidently inferring a different claim from KF's statements than I did. He was talking specifically about people disbelieving in God because of their faith in the conclusions of science, which made me think he was referring to having faith in the conclusions of specific inductive and deductive reasonings, not in humanity's general capacity for reason.
Don't blame me for your visual impairment.
Sorry, I'm a dedicated teetotaler. Since your comments made points that I really thought were obvious, and since you ended them with self-denigrating jest, I thought a little more jestful denigration would be appropriate. Don't blame me for actually understanding what you're talking about.
Ah sorry my bad, I haven't read Nausea yet which I think got me off on the wrong appendage, led me to misread the tone of your post and get my knickers in a twist. Given our posting history with one another I shouldn't have been so defensive. Damn Internets. Drinks, drinks for everyone! Ron Paul's buying.
Milky Joe
01-12-2008, 01:49 AM
Get ready for a national ID card (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/11/real.id.ap/index.html)
Mysterious Dude
01-12-2008, 02:55 AM
The Department of Homeland Security needs to be abolished.
MadMan
01-12-2008, 03:24 PM
Get ready for a national ID card (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/11/real.id.ap/index.html)Yeah I don't believe I live in a truly free nation anymore....hello police state.
I find the American love affair with youthful deaths endlessly fascination. I mean JFK, James Dean, Marilyn Monroe... who were these people really?
Dean - An angsty, whiny, malcontent and social misfit.
Monroe - Dumb blonde with neurological damage leading to lip and eye spasms.
JFK - Thief, Infidelitor, Pig Bay Blunderer and Vietnam instigator.
What's that you say? I'm being needlessly reductionist? Well I'm not out of order, you're out of order! The whole freakin' system is out of order. You want the truth? You want the truth? You can't handle the truth! Cause when you reach over and put your hand into a pile of goo, that was your best friend's face! You'll know what to do. Forget it Marge, it's Chinatown!Heh. I think JFK despite his many faults would have a made for a decent, if maybe good, president. Its hard to even measure his presidency since he was in office for so long. You do have a very good point that his death overshadowed many of his misteps and faults. Namely the whole cheating on his wife thing ;)
*Note: I simply focused on JFK to keep this thread semi on topic. Heh.
Qrazy
01-12-2008, 09:36 PM
Since your comments made points that I really thought were obvious.
Although I do still find this somewhat absurd given the fact that the comments were made as critique of a handful of alternative perspectives, and if the comments were obvious then there would have been no need for the critique in the first place. In what way is the examination of the validity of causality obvious? If it's obvious why does the majority embrace it a priori? I think it's far from self-evident and just because we've both read books that have allowed us to integrate this notion into our overarching world-view, that doesn't mean others wouldn't benefit from a prompt encouraging such an examination.
Melville
01-13-2008, 06:02 PM
Although I do still find this somewhat absurd given the fact that the comments were made as critique of a handful of alternative perspectives, and if the comments were obvious then there would have been no need for the critique in the first place. In what way is the examination of the validity of causality obvious? If it's obvious why does the majority embrace it a priori? I think it's far from self-evident and just because we've both read books that have allowed us to integrate this notion into our overarching world-view, that doesn't mean others wouldn't benefit from a prompt encouraging such an examination.
Maybe "obvious" was a poor choice of word. I think my first choice of "transparent" was better: although many or most people wouldn't understand how or why they should question the validity of causality, your statement is perfectly clear: it doesn't seem to hint at some hidden meaning; it means exactly what it says. Also, other than Monolith's support for Pascal, I'm not sure anybody in the thread was assuming anything about causality, since all the proofs of God's existence were either jokes or reiterations of traditional arguments. This made me think your comments were meant to be glib rather than informative.
Anyway, no worries.:pritch:
Qrazy
01-13-2008, 08:13 PM
Maybe "obvious" was a poor choice of word. I think my first choice of "transparent" was better: although many or most people wouldn't understand how or why they should question the validity of causality, your statement is perfectly clear: it doesn't seem to hint at some hidden meaning; it means exactly what it says. Also, other than Monolith's support for Pascal, I'm not sure anybody in the thread was assuming anything about causality, since all the proofs of God's existence were either jokes or reiterations of traditional arguments. This made me think your comments were meant to be glib rather than informative.
Anyway, no worries.:pritch:
Well yeah, they turned into jokes but before that was a genuine discussion of first causes. I only meant cryptic in relation to my last comment but yeah I was taking the piss when I said it. I'll stop harping, god how I love to harp. I'm a regular winged death spirit over here.
MadMan
01-14-2008, 01:51 AM
The Department of Homeland Security needs to be abolished.If it is some other facist will replace it with something else. Maybe something even worse. That said, I agree with you 100%.
chrisnu
01-14-2008, 02:25 AM
Get ready for a national ID card (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/11/real.id.ap/index.html)
I'm just waiting for the day where we have a bar code on our forehead. Good grief.
The Department of Homeland Security needs to be abolished.
Absolutely.
Milky Joe
01-14-2008, 03:36 AM
If it is some other facist will replace it with something else. Maybe something even worse. That said, I agree with you 100%.
Ron Paul wouldn't. ;)
MadMan
01-14-2008, 04:13 AM
Ron Paul wouldn't. ;)Pretty much, although I think if he's really sticking to his political beliefs Obama wouldn't either.
PS: 1,000th post. Wahoo. About time. Figured I'd hit in a thread about movies, sports, or politics...
Rowland
01-21-2008, 11:08 PM
http://images.salon.com/comics/tomo/2008/01/21/tomo/story.jpg
D_Davis
01-22-2008, 12:45 AM
The Department of Homeland Security needs to be abolished.
Truer words have never been spoken. Ever.
It is a joke and an abomination.
Next up for abolishment should be any kind of military besides one used purely for defending attacks on US soil.
Skitch
01-22-2008, 12:52 AM
Sweet mother of god.
MadMan
01-22-2008, 12:55 AM
Truer words have never been spoken. Ever.
It is a joke and an abomination.
Next up for abolishment should be any kind of military besides one used purely for defending attacks on US soil.I agree especially with that last part, but it will never happen so long as there are folks in this country who feel that America can throw its weight around without any consequences. They clearly forgot the principles and beliefs of the Founding Fathers, but then sadly so have too many on the left as well.
Milky Joe
01-22-2008, 12:56 AM
Truer words have never been spoken. Ever.
It is a joke and an abomination.
Next up for abolishment should be any kind of military besides one used purely for defending attacks on US soil.
Absolutely, completely, fucking exactly right. And I'm telling you right now, there's only one candidate that you're going to get this from. And he won't win if you don't vote for him.
Rowland
01-22-2008, 01:11 AM
And he won't win if you don't vote for him.He won't win if you do either. :P
D_Davis
01-22-2008, 01:12 AM
Absolutely, completely, fucking exactly right. And I'm telling you right now, there's only one candidate that you're going to get this from. And he won't win if you don't vote for him.
Who is this?
If I were elected President, after abolishing an offensive military, I would still employ the ex-soldiers and military officials by making them civil servants. This civil branch of the defensive military would be in charge of national disasters, building houses, and the general maintenance of our infrastructure. They would in fact act like a National Peace Corp for the United States. We could probably end a lot of the unemployment problems in America by shifting the military budget to this kind of program.
Rowland
01-22-2008, 01:14 AM
We could probably end a lot of the unemployment problems in America by shifting the military budget to this kind of program.We would be a very different country if our military budget was shifted to other social programs. Hell, we divert about as much of our taxes into the military as everything else combined. It's seriously insane.
Milky Joe
01-22-2008, 01:22 AM
Who is this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKjhNa6PGLk
D_Davis
01-22-2008, 01:28 AM
We would be a very different country if our military budget was shifted to other social programs. Hell, we divert about as much of our taxes into the military as everything else combined. It's seriously insane.
This really pisses me off.
Mysterious Dude
01-22-2008, 01:32 AM
Perhaps we should add Article 9 of Japan's constitution to our own constitution:
Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. (2) In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.
Rowland
01-22-2008, 01:39 AM
This really pisses me off.And yet we still can't afford to treat our veterans like anything more than second-class burdens. :pritch:
D_Davis
01-22-2008, 01:46 AM
And yet we still can't afford to treat our veterans like anything more than second-class burdens. :pritch:
Exactly. There is also a high percentage of military families who use food stamps. Oh joy!
D_Davis
01-22-2008, 01:48 AM
Perhaps we should add Article 9 of Japan's constitution to our own constitution:
I totally agree.
And next up, bye-bye death penalty.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.