***OFFICIAL GOD DISCUSSION***

[surviva316]

oh, ok, good. just so long as we can all agree that the american republican party is retarded

[federico999]

I dont believe in good but Im afraid of him(el amor en los tiempos del colera)

but so is the American Democrat party that allowed the Patriot Act to pass, that allowed Bush to go into Iraq, and their stupid fucking president that pushes a healthcare plan that will increase costs of healthcare (because you don't get anything for free)

not to mention the cash for clunkers fiasco

[a500lbgorilla]

iopq, you should really be ashamed of every post you've made in this thread.

You're just dumb.

edit and this is from a guy flying high from VT 21 Miami 0!

that's right, all of your arguments are I'm stupid and you're smart because liberals = smart, conservatives = dumb

I mean I haven't seen any evidence posted whatsoever to support your claims

[Jack Sawyer]

oh yeah not to mention how the democrats passed the UIGEA

[a500lbgorilla]

sorry, dude. But you're a good 4 years away from being able to understand anything I say (other than you're dumb).

You're dumb.

[JKDS]

im tempted to try to irritate wuff, like all the time, just so he'll say more things like "...and dumbfucks still cant tell the difference between toilet paper and elephants banging in the woods" etc.

serious rofls.

[bigred]

WHERE ALL DA BAPTIST WIMENZ AT?!!?!?

sorry, dude. But you're a good 4 years away from being able to understand anything I say (other than you're dumb).

You're dumb.

so you've never had any arguments, just insults

I understand, it's hard to defend your position against thinking debaters

[Parasurama]

you're all fucking dumb, i had money on the THE U, fuck vatech...........

Shit, btw THERE IS NO GOD

[Lukie]

another religion and/or politics thread gone south

i'm shocked

[a500lbgorilla]

After 4 pages. Don't act like we just started shitting in our hands and playing dodge-poo from the get go.

[boost]

slavery: democrats wanted to keep slaves, a Republican president freed them in the South (although not in the North)

you sir are confusing "conservative" and "liberal" with "republican" and "democrat."

[a500lbgorilla]

Just ignore it boost.

[boost]

Just ignore it boost.

ha.. when I see you resort to a "youre just too stupid" stance then it probably is best to just move on.

[wufwugy]

slavery: democrats wanted to keep slaves, a Republican president freed them in the South (although not in the North)

So I'm busy talking about political policies, and you straw man me by talking about political parties? Great. Maybe next time look up Lincoln and the election of 1860 and slavery and see that Republicans were the liberal party at the time.

The fact that it was the Republicans that had a liberal agenda of freeing slaves, and that they got 100% of their support from the relatively liberal north should clue you in. But I wasn't even talking about parties in the first place, but policies, and freeing slaves was backed by the liberals, while keeping them was backed by the conservatives and special interests

wuf: 1, iop: 0

Great Depression: have you heard of the Great Depression of 1920? that's because it never happened, when the stock market crashed in 1920 and we handled it the right way

Stop getting your information from blogs and the laughing stocks of economics (Austrians). The 1921 recession was a post-war recession brought on by not addressing post-war economic issue correctly. For example, when masses of men come home from war and flood the labor force, but there are no jobs for them, and the previously strong labor force loses a bunch of jobs and sees its sharpest increase in size in US history, and on top of all that the federal reserve DRAMATICALLY INCREASES INTEREST RATES what you get is massive deflation and recession.

This was fixed by stopping their retarded economic policy. Are you seriously using an example of a recession caused by extremely terrible interventionist policy that no respected economist today thinks is a good idea as an example of why non-intervention is a good idea? That's like calling me merciful because I stopped beating my wife.

And as to why you've completely side stepped the issue, I have no clue. Almost every single decade of American history has seen some kind of economic crisis and recession, but only a couple times have we seen actual financial collapse. I like how I reference financial collapse, and you bring up a situation that had nothing to do with financial collapse.

wuf: 2, iop: 0

income distribution: total bullshit, it's like distributing rake to fish

WTF are you talking about? It is now ridiculously obvious that you don't know anything about economics because if we had to pick the single most important aspect of successful economies it would be income distribution, and it's not even close.

Economies are based in economic activity i.e. exchange of goods, and the amount of goods exchange is heavily affected by who has the goods. Smaller income gaps and more income for the poor, middle, and working class means bigger and stronger economy because they're the consumers and they don't hoard.

I am totally not going to get into this because I could write for days about income gaps, and the issues therein.

wuf: 3, iop: 0

current economic crisis: it's caused in part by dumb fuck interventionist foreign policy that Obama plans on continuing with in Afghanistan because for the left, war is not war without Bush

Puff and pass! If you take another pull there's not gonna be enough for the rest of us.

While the war situation is a problem, it's completely irrelevant. But please explain to me how deregulating the financial markets and making it completely possible and legal for corporations to sell bad mortgages then falsely repackage them and grow an economy on fake wealth then when it all hits the fan the financial system completely collapses until propped up by the populous isn't what this recession has been about.

wuf: 4, iop: 0

And before you get your panties in a ruffle, keep in mind that a huge chunk of Republicans are not conservatives. Most Republicans are Neoconservatives, aka big government types.

Naw that's still conservative. The thing is that they don't know it because they don't understand the issues and disregard cause and effect. Claiming that deregulating and reducing the public sector creates small government and more freedom is like claiming that punching Sandra Day O'Connor in the face won't get you ass raped in prison. This is a great example of thinking short instead of thinking long.

Conservatives like to say they're fiscally responsible, but what they don't realize is that their ideas of fiscal responsibility are actually incredibly irresponsible because that is what they cause down the road. When you take away regulating powers of the public sector you effectively promote regulating powers of the private sector, and then you see things like the crisis of 08. American history is riddled with deregulating public sector too much causing private sector to fuck everything up

And please show me all these Republican voters who claim to want big government. Or wait, don't, because you can't because they don't exist. Instead they're a bunch of people who choose to know nothing about policy, fall prey to pretty rhetoric, and vote for people who say one thing then do another

wuf: 5, iop: 0

gg no re k thx bai

[BooG690]

PWNED imo.

[BennyLaRue]

Ban erveryone, pls. K, thanks.

[wufwugy]

for the left, war is not war without Bush

I forgot to address this.

For all the claims of partisanship coming from the uneducated, it's funny that liberals are steadfastly non-partisan. For example, if you go to a science forum, where you'll find more actual liberals than other forums, you'll see that we're all pissed off at Obama. Over many issues. In fact, many of us are hoping he gets primaried in 2012 by an actual liberal who isn't in the pockets of corporate money. Maybe then he would actually be gung ho about correct policy.

See, the thing is that people who actually understand the issues don't really care who is in office as long as they do what is right. People who don't understand the issues simply just repeat what they're told

[BennyLaRue]

Thread saved by Catholic school girls?

[a500lbgorilla]

I like her boobs.

[wufwugy]

fixed for benny

[a500lbgorilla]

I like her boobs as well

[BennyLaRue]

fixed for benny

I expected a nubian Catholic school girl. Get on that.

[BennyLaRue]

I like her boobs.

I like the whole torso area. Nice torso.

[wufwugy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMj...er_profilepage

oh man, i'm still ROFL'ing from the part about the czars:

interviewer: "well it seems like the main problem you have with their position is actually the terminology that is tied with them, and that terminology was started by ronald reagan"

lady: "well, well, yeah, i didn't know this, and i've always considered myself a republican, but i think now i need to start to question that"

lol wtf how retarded can you be. that was like story of american voters right there: changing parties based on the fact that there are government officials called "czars." no, don't even bother changing your own beliefs about how using that term isn't completely evil and doesn't make obama the anti-christ, just change your entire political orientation, so that you can stubbornly stick by this ridiculous thesis you have goin'

The b-sides of this footage is also good

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fevga...er_profilepage

[wufwugy]

but so is the American Democrat party that allowed the Patriot Act to pass, that allowed Bush to go into Iraq, and their stupid fucking president that pushes a healthcare plan that will increase costs of healthcare (because you don't get anything for free)

not to mention the cash for clunkers fiasco

As has been said, Democrat != liberal. Only a total of ten senators voted against renewing the Patriot Act in 06. This is a great example of how few steadfast liberals there are in Congress. And yeah the Dems dropped the ball screwed the pooch and got raspberried under the bus during the Bush admin, and it's continuing quite heavily under Obama.

Is your comment on health care meant to show that you get your information from Hannity and Papa Bear? It would be one thing if you were right, but on the contrary the massive amounts of evidence conclusively show that when you insure everybody and control administrative costs, prices drop and care improves. This notoin that 'omg we cant haz pai 4 it' is non-sequitur and has no basis in reality.

Or you could just keep defending the health insurance industry which spends 1/3rd of every dollar on trying to not pay for care, and which increases profit revenue by reducing preventative care. It pleases me that denying care for the sick allows executives to buy another vacation house. Oh, wait, that doesn't please me...

[wufwugy]

oh yeah not to mention how the democrats passed the UIGEA

I know right?? I was liek wtfbbq. Not only was the 109th Congress controlled by Dems, but Jim Leach and Bill Frist and Robert Goodlatte and Jon Kyl are all Dems.

Oh wait

Austrians are laughing stocks of economics? Yeah because fact-based approach to economics is not popular among LIBERALS. Liberals would rather accept the Keynesian notion of government control of economy.

This is where FACTS point to Austrian economics being right and liberals denying reality. Funny how we didn't have a Great Depression before we had the federal reserve in the first place.

Income distribution is not necessary. When you see it's not necessary to live, you see that income distribution is motivated by greed. I want free money... wee! And don't even say the economy as a whole is better with income distribution, because the most successful economies like South Korea and Signapore and Hong Kong have less income distribution than Socialist countries like North Korea. They have free food and free housing for people. How is that working out for them?

The economic crisis is caused by bad investment. What encourages bad investment? INSANELY LOW RATES ON HOUSING. Freddy Mac and Fannie May made it possible for the housing rates to explode because they gave credit below market (prime) rate, which is why it was called a sub-prime mortgage.

Notice that you said that Democrats are not all liberal and I said Republicans are not all conservative USING YOUR OWN WORDS and you disagreed. So suddenly all Republicans are conservative but not all Democrats are liberal? And of course Republican voters are retarded. But so are Democrat voters. That's why I'm not a Republican or a Democrat. I agree with you that being independent is the way to go.

I don't watch Hannity or O'reilly.

[boost]

using North Korea as an example of a country that distributes its wealth evenly is so beyond retarded.

no country distributes wealth evenly

[wufwugy]

Austrians are laughing stocks of economics?

Yeah that's usually what happens when you don't publish much scientific and numerical work.

Yeah because fact-based approach to economics is not popular among LIBERALS. Liberals would rather accept the Keynesian notion of government control of economy.

That's what's called a straw man. Keynesian economics has nothing to do with government takeover, and curiously Keynesian policies have been vindicated time and again, but when the uneducated populous prefer to revise history, it gets lost. That's fine though because actual scientists have been very supportive of Keynes all this time.

And please stop stealing the word 'fact' from people who know what they're talking about. It confuses you

This is where FACTS point to Austrian economics being right and liberals denying reality. Funny how we didn't have a Great Depression before we had the federal reserve in the first place.

Funny how buildings didn't explode until bombs were created.

The GD is fantastic example of an abused and deregulated financial system, horrible non-interventionist policy creating further problems, then actual educated people taking over and regulating the system correctly and created the strongest working class in US history for decades to come until everybody forgot about it and started listening to corporate propaganda

Income distribution is not necessary. When you see it's not necessary to live, you see that income distribution is motivated by greed. I want free money... wee! And don't even say the economy as a whole is better with income distribution, because the most successful economies like South Korea and Signapore and Hong Kong have less income distribution than Socialist countries like North Korea. They have free food and free housing for people. How is that working out for them?

Stop. Just stop

You clearly don't even know what income distribution is. Economies are not possible without income distribution, and the issue of income distribution is about how, where, and when it distributes itself. You're confusing this with some imagined, specific, and manual redistribution.

The economic crisis is caused by bad investment. What encourages bad investment? INSANELY LOW RATES ON HOUSING. Freddy Mac and Fannie May made it possible for the housing rates to explode because they gave credit below market (prime) rate, which is why it was called a sub-prime mortgage.

You're pointing at one symptom and claiming it's a cause. The cause is the reason for why the sub-prime bubble was allowed to be created in the first place. It wasn't by low interest rates or loose credit. Not even close. It was from repealing the Glass-Steagal Act (a crazy librul Great Depression era law that separated commercial and investment banking, and did a helluva lot of good), and not regulating this new financial paradigm which allowed banks to write bad mortgages then get them off their hands by repackaging them and sell them to other companies. While each individual bank saw great profits from this, the bad mortgages never disappeared from the system, then it all finally came to a head. Classic Tragedy of the Commons

Notice that you said that Democrats are not all liberal and I said Republicans are not all conservative USING YOUR OWN WORDS and you disagreed. So suddenly all Republicans are conservative but not all Democrats are liberal? And of course Republican voters are retarded. But so are Democrat voters. That's why I'm not a Republican or a Democrat. I agree with you that being independent is the way to go.

Except that you can't back your statement up by finding non-conservative Republicans while I can find huge numbers of non-liberal Democrats. The reason why this can be confusing is that corporatism has hijacked conservatism. This is essentially where the neoconservative label comes from, but reality is that corporatism hijacked conservatism because it's an effect of conservatism. Non-interventionist and free market conservatism is finger-licking good for corporatism, and is its logical step.

Conservatism has also been hijacked by theocracy. This is also an effect of conservative ideology, and while a really old school, 'pure' conservative may argue that this isn't conservatism, religious authoritarianism is also a logical step for conservatism.

[wufwugy]

using North Korea as an example of a country that distributes its wealth evenly is so beyond retarded.

Naw dude he's right. NK is a shining example of

various theories of economic organisation advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterised by equal access to resources for all individuals with an egalitarian method of compensation.

wiki says:

Keynesian economics (also called Keynesianism (pronounced /ˈkeɪnziən/) and Keynesian Theory) is a macroeconomic theory based on the ideas of 20th-century British economist John Maynard Keynes. Keynesian economics argues that private sector decisions sometimes lead to inefficient macroeconomic outcomes and therefore advocates active policy responses by the public sector, including monetary policy actions by the central bank and fiscal policy actions by the government to stabilize output over the business cycle.

so that's what I talk about when I say Keynesian economics

and Austrian economics predicted the real estate market problems years before it happened, so Austrian economics has proven its theories to be correct
when you have a theory and it predicts the future, it stands to be a pretty good theory
but all the liberals whined that the only reason conservatives want to regulate freddy mac / fannie may is because conservatives hate poor people and don't want them to buy homes

theocrats and neocons took over the Republican party and that doesn't make them conservatives
anyone who is pro interventionism, pro preventive war, cannot be a true conservative because war increases government spending
no wonder you have difficulty finding conservatives among the Republican party, they are a small minority!

[wufwugy]

I am not going to continue this charade of correctly refuting 100% of what you get wrong, just to find you show up making more asinine statements

I mean WTF is this? You're like a machine that generates talking points in a manner similar to looking up at the clouds and, because you can't see beyond them, you conclude that they're the edge of the sky. All the while NASA exists and they've documented that clouds are indeed not the edge of the sky

[JKDS]

wuf keep up da rofls

i noticed an increase in rofl statements after i said this.

ty wuf

[wufwugy]

Father Greg changes the mower blades with Jesus

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4EWnxYTngE

Father Greg changes the oil with Jesus

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oPauagV7ls

[a500lbgorilla]

Good call with the new thread. From this point on, the convo has to steer back to God.

[CoccoBill]

but so is the American Democrat party that allowed the Patriot Act to pass, that allowed Bush to go into Iraq, and their stupid fucking president that pushes a healthcare plan that will increase costs of healthcare (because you don't get anything for free)

I'm just gonna say this one thing, dude, this is not some republicans vs democrats fanboy flamewar. They are not rival football teams, they're political parties, you're not expected to stick with your "team" through thick and thin. This is the major fault of a two-party system, it encourages partisanship, but I guess it makes choosing your political views easier since there are only 2 options, less thinking required. The other party "doing it too" is NOT a justification for bad policy. Their actions should be measured against their results, not that they are slightly less fucked up than their counterparts. I couldn't care less about the democratic party, they're basically the same fukin party with some very slightly less right wing policies to try to make at least some kind of differentiation between them. Both of the parties would be deemed extreme right wing elsewhere.

[Jack Sawyer]

How God became politics and economics i have no idea.

A few observations though. If we have to believe in Christian God or a Catholic God (I have no idea about the Adventists, the Baptists, the Jews, the Muslims, the Hindus etc.), we would have to disregard everything we think we know about the universe. We would have to think that we are alone in the universe as a species (while we have not discovered any alien lifeforms yet, for good or for bad, the vast amount of stars and galaxies we have discovered simply makes it pretty improbable that there is not other lifeforms out there), and that also the earth was only x years old, with X being < 10,000. We would also have to take for granted that dinosaur bones found "were put there to test mankind's faith". Its a package, you cannot select a la carte what you want out of it, its all inherent.

The Spanish Inquisition taught me all i needed to know about religion. Particularly when I look today to see what religion dominates in Latin America, when the conquistadors had a bible in the left hand, and a sword in the right.

And another thing: the closest thing we have, we *actually* have, to a God, in that it's omniscient, omnipresent, lifegiver, lifetaker and has a weird sense of humor... is the Sun.

[CoccoBill]

And another thing: the closest thing we have, we *actually* have, to a God, in that it's omniscient, omnipresent, lifegiver, lifetaker and has a weird sense of humor... is the Sun.

Have you seen Zeitgeist?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...3847743189197#

but so is the American Democrat party that allowed the Patriot Act to pass, that allowed Bush to go into Iraq, and their stupid fucking president that pushes a healthcare plan that will increase costs of healthcare (because you don't get anything for free)

I'm just gonna say this one thing, dude, this is not some republicans vs democrats fanboy flamewar. They are not rival football teams, they're political parties, you're not expected to stick with your "team" through thick and thin. This is the major fault of a two-party system, it encourages partisanship, but I guess it makes choosing your political views easier since there are only 2 options, less thinking required. The other party "doing it too" is NOT a justification for bad policy. Their actions should be measured against their results, not that they are slightly less fucked up than their counterparts. I couldn't care less about the democratic party, they're basically the same fukin party with some very slightly less right wing policies to try to make at least some kind of differentiation between them. Both of the parties would be deemed extreme right wing elsewhere.

that's why I think both of the parties suck
but we should move the discussion into the other thread imo

[mrhappy333]

I feel like I need god, but because he is an illusion, I cannot get it straight.

I'm not exactly sure if wufwugy copied this from somebody or wrote it himself.

Anywho, I read it and it sums up my idea of God pretty well. God is just "too convenient" for me to believe that He isn't just a figment of people's imaginations. I mean, He's there to listen to your prayers and perhaps grant them. He gives reason to good people dying (it was their time; God needs them now) and He is pretty much the fallback for most people (thing are bad now, but God will take care of it). When you've done something wrong and you feel really bad about it, just tell God about it and everything will be alright. Does it not seem that God can just be TOO convenient and provide the answer that humans just CAN'T live without?

Also, it's amazing how much atheists are totally SHUNNED in American society (I cannot speak so much for other societies). Somehow, I'm an ignoramus for not believing in God. It's pretty irritating that, even though my belief seems to be based more on FACTS, I'm just retarded for not believing in God (almost as if God OBVIOUSLY EXISTS). Pretty annoying. I leave this paragraph with a snippet straight out of my Facebook (It was a comment on a picture I posted up that I got from here; basically mocking the idea of Jesus):

Funny how "atheist are homos" is probably the idea most Catholics have (get it, they hate homos too?). Also, sad that behind closed doors, Krystiana is quick to discuss atheism with me. However, on Facebook, she isn't atheist. *SIGH*

I have a big problem with religions as a whole (note: religion and belief in God are two separate things). It just seems like an organization of people pushing their beliefs on others and trying to control what they do. They put constraints on what can/cannot be done and basically, it's a restraint on life. I mean, Muslims and Jews will never eat bacon (that was a quasi-joke, but you get my drift)! It's just sad for me to see people live blindly for a religion that may or may not be correct in what they preach. Their whole life was devoted to this religion and they miss out on the more important things in life, like bacon (again, bacon is a mere symbol for the finer things in life...though nothing is finer than bacon).

Remember when this thread was to talk about GOD?

[CoccoBill]

Remember when this thread was to talk about GOD?

Well it's not much of a debate is it? You either blindly and unwaveringly believe in something fictional or you don't.

[surviva316]

A few observations though. If we have to believe in Christian God or a Catholic God (I have no idea about the Adventists, the Baptists, the Jews, the Muslims, the Hindus etc.), we would have to disregard everything we think we know about the universe. We would have to think that we are alone in the universe as a species (while we have not discovered any alien lifeforms yet, for good or for bad, the vast amount of stars and galaxies we have discovered simply makes it pretty improbable that there is not other lifeforms out there), and that also the earth was only x years old, with X being < 10,000. We would also have to take for granted that dinosaur bones found "were put there to test mankind's faith". Its a package, you cannot select a la carte what you want out of it, its all inherent.

this isn't true of modern catholicism, though i can't speak for protestant religions. anything that you hear about the earth being 10,000 years is either taken from antiquity or taken from the mouths of like a southern baptist preacher or something. all of the catholic schools i went to taught evolution and the big bang theory and so forth, and i can't ever recall anyone seriously doubting the merits of these sorts of things.

at least ever since vatican II catholicism has been pretty open (i'm sure it varies based on region, age of the believer and so forth, but are "officially" open) and read the bible a little more symbolically, and even in a lot of cases are open to interpretting certain of jesus' miracles as being symbolic and so forth.

what you CAN'T believe "a la carte" as you put it, is things like the eucharist IS the body and blood of christ, jesus WAS conceived while mary was a virgin (the immaculate conception) and so forth.

this isn't all that dooming for christianity, though, 'cause if you don't wanna believe any specific dogmatic points, but still wanna believe in jesus as your savior, you can always just be unitarian. so i see what you're saying, but it's kinda a red herring

[wufwugy]

but so is the American Democrat party that allowed the Patriot Act to pass, that allowed Bush to go into Iraq, and their stupid fucking president that pushes a healthcare plan that will increase costs of healthcare (because you don't get anything for free)

I'm just gonna say this one thing, dude, this is not some republicans vs democrats fanboy flamewar. They are not rival football teams, they're political parties, you're not expected to stick with your "team" through thick and thin. This is the major fault of a two-party system, it encourages partisanship, but I guess it makes choosing your political views easier since there are only 2 options, less thinking required. The other party "doing it too" is NOT a justification for bad policy. Their actions should be measured against their results, not that they are slightly less fucked up than their counterparts. I couldn't care less about the democratic party, they're basically the same fukin party with some very slightly less right wing policies to try to make at least some kind of differentiation between them. Both of the parties would be deemed extreme right wing elsewhere.

As Bill Maher puts it, "The Democrats have moved to the right, and the Republicans have moved to the crazy house".

However, the Democratic base is still social liberal progressive, but being a big tent party, the base isn't as important as it is for Republicans. Also, liberals are genuinely not militant like the right-wing fundies and corporations, and so much less gets done. If you've paid any attention to US politics you've seen that Republicans fight with fire while most Democrats fight with a spray bottle

you somehow have this delusion that the Democrats are somehow different from Republicans

at their core, they share the same values:
corporatism
<3 for big government
higher salaries for themselves (oh sorry, I meant cost of living increases)
hate for freedom because you can't control free people

[Numbr2intheWorld]

Alright i haven't read much of this thread but i have been thinking about this a lot. First to understand where i come from you need to understand my background:

I grew up in a small town in Iowa called Fairfield, which is the home of a "cult" (i call it cult only for lack of a better word) called the spiritual regenerating movement, although its rarely referred to that anymore. Both my parents practice Transcendental Meditation, which is basically what makes one a part of this cult. And that's about it. I learned when i was 9 and my entire education--elementary school, middle school and highschool--was learned at a school that, although was an accredited school that taught the normal subjects, revolved around TM and other teachings from the Guru Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. You may recognize this name, he taught many famous people TM including the beatles and recently passed away.

This was my childhood teaching about God in brief. 1) God exists 2) TM helps you become one with the silence inside of you, which connects you with god 3) If you practice TM you will become enlightened, one with the universe.

Here's what i learned about death. 1) Souls go through millions of lifetimes, when you die you are reincarnated into another person or animal 2) Souls have loads of "Karma" that is slowly worked off through each of your lives 3) Once you become enlightened, when you die you will continue to live on as part of the universe but will not come back.

Not until recently have i mostly broken away from TM. Just to clarify, there are actually scientific studies that show health benefits of Transcendental Meditation, including lower blood pressure and longer lives. It's also been effective in helping children with ADD and middle and highschool students in general. Most people who practice are good people who will not pressure you one bit into trying it and have no pressure themselves to try it. Some people Love it. Even I still like doing it once in a while, but i do not believe anymore that i will work off any karma or become enlightened from it.

I think the subject of God is pretty straightforward. I'm pretty sure God as seen through the bible or old testament does not exist. Most of the stories in those religious texts are either copies of prior texts or just plain fiction (and from what i've read, probably jesus christ is included in this). God hasn't talked to anyone in thousands of years and in these days if someone claimed that they'd probably be institutionalized. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to believe that god exists besides in these religions passed down from thousands of years ago and they're all looking more and more like bullshit.

I think a lot of this has come from people's fear of death. I too, still can't help to wonder and be afraid. But as i think about it, i realize, do i even want to live forever? I mean heaven claims ill be happy for the rest of my "life" but life is so long i think that by the time im 80 i'm going to feel alright about being done. There's an old philosopher (i've forgotten his name) Who said that there's no connection between life and death. When you die you won't be conscious, you won't feel anything, there will be nothing. You won't know that you are dead, you won't experience dead. I think he's pretty right on.

Although i don't believe in god, I do believe there's some point. I understand that there are scientific reasons for why everything is the way it is (The only thing truly atheist i've read is the God Delusion but it seemed pretty informative). But even with that, there are still things that have no explanation. Ok, so the big bang was very improbable but everything that can happen will happen, but why is there probability to begin with? Why is there anything and everything? I just have a really hard time accepting that we could actually be that insignificant and that there is no reason for any of this.

Final Thought:
One day you wake up and start looking around. And for some reason you accept that everything is the way it is and makes sense. Isn't that just kind of crazy!? Like, what the fuck is a form we call a human being, or vision, or a thought. It's amazing to think that thousands of years ago we basically knew nothing about the us, the planet, and the universe and now we're uncovering so much about how everything works. I wonder if science will soon lead us to a spiritual truth (maybe it already has).

[Numbr2intheWorld]

Remember when this thread was to talk about GOD?

Well it's not much of a debate is it? You either blindly and unwaveringly believe in something fictional or you don't.

LOL wow so true.

[Jack Sawyer]

this isn't true of modern catholicism, though i can't speak for protestant religions. anything that you hear about the earth being 10,000 years is either taken from antiquity or taken from the mouths of like a southern baptist preacher or something. all of the catholic schools i went to taught evolution and the big bang theory and so forth, and i can't ever recall anyone seriously doubting the merits of these sorts of things.

at least ever since vatican II catholicism has been pretty open (i'm sure it varies based on region, age of the believer and so forth, but are "officially" open) and read the bible a little more symbolically, and even in a lot of cases are open to interpretting certain of jesus' miracles as being symbolic and so forth.

What I meant to put forward is, how is it possible to believe in God without also having to believe in creationism? How do you honestly say you do believe in God but also accept the facts (accepting the facts as true) about evolution? What about all that 7 days and the big bang, Adam and Eve or monkeys in Africa, the snake and the apple or the discovery of the wheel and portable fire?

Its a huge contradiction; its all mutually exclusive imo.

[Lukie]

this isn't true of modern catholicism, though i can't speak for protestant religions. anything that you hear about the earth being 10,000 years is either taken from antiquity or taken from the mouths of like a southern baptist preacher or something. all of the catholic schools i went to taught evolution and the big bang theory and so forth, and i can't ever recall anyone seriously doubting the merits of these sorts of things.

at least ever since vatican II catholicism has been pretty open (i'm sure it varies based on region, age of the believer and so forth, but are "officially" open) and read the bible a little more symbolically, and even in a lot of cases are open to interpretting certain of jesus' miracles as being symbolic and so forth.

What I meant to put forward is, how is it possible to believe in God without also having to believe in creationism? How do you honestly say you do believe in God but also accept the facts (accepting the facts as true) about evolution? What about all that 7 days and the big bang, Adam and Eve or monkeys in Africa, the snake and the apple or the discovery of the wheel and portable fire?

Its a huge contradiction; its all mutually exclusive imo.

Agreed, which is why it drives me crazy to hear somebody say something like, "I believe god created evolution".

... No. That's you trying to get along with both sides and it doesn't make any sense from either perspective.

Or when people say that they don't believe in the literal interpretation of the bible but instead use it as a guide in life and for the metaphorical value. Thats fine and dandy and great, but it inherently means you can't and shouldn't use it to explain the physical world we live in.

I have a lot to say on the subject actually, but I've honestly just lost interest in talking about religion and/or politics. I don't even do it in real life anymore. I hear both sides. Online it's overwhelmingly liberal/athiest, where I live it's overwhelmingly conservative.

It's all really amusing to be honest.

[CoccoBill]

Not until recently have i mostly broken away from TM. Just to clarify, there are actually scientific studies that show health benefits of Transcendental Meditation, including lower blood pressure and longer lives. It's also been effective in helping children with ADD and middle and highschool students in general.

Sounds possible, but no more than any other type of meditation or self suggestion, the power our minds have over our bodies has scientific backing.

Although i don't believe in god, I do believe there's some point. I understand that there are scientific reasons for why everything is the way it is (The only thing truly atheist i've read is the God Delusion but it seemed pretty informative). But even with that, there are still things that have no explanation. Ok, so the big bang was very improbable but everything that can happen will happen, but why is there probability to begin with? Why is there anything and everything? I just have a really hard time accepting that we could actually be that insignificant and that there is no reason for any of this.

Reasons and explanations yes, any deeper or higher meaning likely not, at least in any sense logical to our understanding. Neil deGrasse Tyson I think was on to something when he was comparing our intelligence to that of chimps. We share almost 99% of the DNA with them, yet the smartest chimp who ever lived can maybe do some sign language, whereas we build the Hubble telescope. The difference between those two is somewhere within that 1%, and although we like to think that the difference in the level of intelligence between the chimps and ourselves is vast, maybe that's not the case. Imagine another life form that's similarly different to us, with another 1% difference to the same direction as we are from the chimps, what would we be to them? To them probably quantum mechanics, astrophysics, dark energy etc would be something intuitive and the smartest humans who ever lived would be like drooling idiots to them. Maybe we are just not smart enough to ever figure out the place we're living in.

Final Thought:
One day you wake up and start looking around. And for some reason you accept that everything is the way it is and makes sense. Isn't that just kind of crazy!? Like, what the fuck is a form we call a human being, or vision, or a thought. It's amazing to think that thousands of years ago we basically knew nothing about the us, the planet, and the universe and now we're uncovering so much about how everything works. I wonder if science will soon lead us to a spiritual truth (maybe it already has).

Well we are quite pathetic at observing our universe to begin with. We can only see a miniscule portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, we can't see radio waves, infrared, ultraviolet, x-rays nor gamma rays, yet all of that is out there. Even the tiny bit that we do see gets all skewed and mangled up in our brain before its represented to us as vision. We pretty much see, feel, hear, taste and smell just enough for a caveman to survive against predatory animals, and we've developed traits and beliefs that support our survival. Religion clearly has been a very strong meme, banding together with common beliefs, having something to give strength and courage in battle and some kind of promise of better times ahead, even after death, seems to have been something humans needed in the early days. Similarly to other traits such as low metabolism that's now working more to our disadvantage. Low metabolism kept people alive when food was scarce, now it leads to overweight and cardiovascular diseases.

[baudib]

I don't think having faith and believing in evolution are mutually exclusive ideas. I realize some people are literal creationists but they're a small whacked-out minority.

I do not believe that any established religion's ancient texts can be taken too seriously as actual accounts of interactions between men and higher powers (Angels, God, Allah, etc.). Think about the difficulties you would face in writing an account of the life of, say, George Washington. Even with plenty of documentation and history it's hard to know from this distance what the guy was really all about and what he intended, delving into the nuances of particular events that happened to him is frankly absurd. That's pretty much what we're left with when reading the Gospels, many of them contradict each other in nontrivial ways.

Add on a couple thousand years of interpretations, high rulings handed down from clergy (who were mostly just robber barons for much of European history) during the Dark Ages, and you are left with a mishmash that has almost nothing to do with what happened 2000 years ago.

Anyway, I'm not religious and certainly not Christian... but I find the idea of Jesus pretty interesting, he was a fascinating historical figure. To me his message was pretty simple, something like: Love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek, and forgive. It's a simple yet incredibly difficult message for anyone to accept, let alone live by.

My own opinion? My guess is that there is a "God" or "Creator" but He/She/It is not really a moralist. It's hard to imagine such a thing in a universe as random and cruel as ours. But I don't believe that life is an accident and I think the cohesiveness linking all life is that is too marvelous to be a random occurrence. I tend to think of God as a mad scientist or mathematician who sparked cell division and invented the divine proportion/Fibonacci number.

/end mindless ramble

[boost]

... but I find the idea of Jesus pretty interesting, he was a fascinating historical figure.

Thats funny because Jesus as a historical figure is one of the most perpetuated fallacies ever. Jesus is not a historical figure, there are not existing secular accounts of jesus, nor are there any accounts dating from his time.

Do I think that a person named Jesus whos life vaguely fits the description that we currently have of his life existed? I think its possible, but I think that this person differs so very much from our current accounts that any religion based on him is obviously laughable.

Btw its also laughable how offended christians will get when you point this out.

[Warpe]

I realize some people are literal creationists but they're a small whacked-out minority.

yeah, it's only 45% of the US population. when it gets over 50%, then we should worry.

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/har...ex.asp?PID=581

sorry, misread it. start worrying:

...national survey shows that almost two-thirds of U.S. adults (64%) agree with the basic tenet of creationism, that "human beings were created directly by God."

At the same time, approximately one-fifth (22%) of adults believe "human beings evolved from earlier species" (evolution) and 10 percent subscribe to the theory that "human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them" (intelligent design). Moreover, a majority (55%) believe that all three of these theories should be taught in public schools, while 23 percent support teaching creationism only, 12 percent evolution only, and four percent intelligent design only...

[Warpe]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/da...evolution.aspx

[givememyleg]

my god can beat up your god!

[Warpe]

[baudib]

... but I find the idea of Jesus pretty interesting, he was a fascinating historical figure.

Thats funny because Jesus as a historical figure is one of the most perpetuated fallacies ever. Jesus is not a historical figure, there are not existing secular accounts of jesus, nor are there any accounts dating from his time.

Do I think that a person named Jesus whos life vaguely fits the description that we currently have of his life existed? I think its possible, but I think that this person differs so very much from our current accounts that any religion based on him is obviously laughable.

Btw its also laughable how offended christians will get when you point this out.

Actually there are secular accounts of Jesus as recorded by the Romans although there is some controversy over this.

[boost]

... but I find the idea of Jesus pretty interesting, he was a fascinating historical figure.

Thats funny because Jesus as a historical figure is one of the most perpetuated fallacies ever. Jesus is not a historical figure, there are not existing secular accounts of jesus, nor are there any accounts dating from his time.

Do I think that a person named Jesus whos life vaguely fits the description that we currently have of his life existed? I think its possible, but I think that this person differs so very much from our current accounts that any religion based on him is obviously laughable.

Btw its also laughable how offended christians will get when you point this out.

Actually there are secular accounts of Jesus as recorded by the Romans although there is some controversy over this.

Id like to see these. As far as I know there are no contemporary secular accounts of jesus. And the "contemporary" religious accounts are all shown to in fact not be contemporary at all, but written by people who could not have possibly lived in the time of jesus.

edit: Stuff like this is probably what you are talking about

The first-century Roman Tacitus, who is considered one of the more accurate historians of the ancient world, mentioned superstitious “Christians” (from Christus, which is Latin for Christ), who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century (Annals 15.44).

In the first case, Tacitus only mentions that there were people who believed in jesus; there is simply no mention here of a man named jesus christ. Also Tacitus was born some 30+ years after jesus supposedly was alive. In the second case of Suetonius, we have the classic "deciphering" technique often used in conjunction with prophets like nostradamus where a word sounds similar and if we just replace this letter with that and move this letter here, voila! nostradamus predicted that obama is the reincarnation of hitler! Christus was a common name back then and if in fact this was a reference to jesus the author, Suentonius, was born decades after jesus died. Here is what he wrote so you can see how silly it is to hold it as evidence of jesus.

Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, [Emperor Claudius in 49 CE] expelled them from Rome.

[wufwugy]

Also, Jesus isn't special. Lots of religious figures rose from the dead, healed the sick, etc

[boost]

Also, Jesus isn't special. Lots of religious figures rose from the dead, healed the sick, etc

and likely didnt exist.

[wufwugy]

Also, Jesus isn't special. Lots of religious figures rose from the dead, healed the sick, etc

and likely didnt exist.

I like how when given the option between the imagination of primitive man huddled in his tent, or the elaborate yet precise machine of discovery known as science, most people choose the former

[BooG690]

Also, Jesus isn't special. Lots of religious figures rose from the dead, healed the sick, etc

Please compare the Egyptian god Horus to Jesus Christ. You will see the similarities (so close to where Jesus' story almost seems plagarized).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1CWBKRWIg0

[bigred]

WHERE ALL DA DINOSAUR RIDIN WIMENZ AT

[bigred]

[bigred]

And just so I'm fair to both sides... (triple post goodness)

[a500lbgorilla]

hahaha!

[surviva316]

should i change my poker avatar to a cartoonist's depiction of the prophet mohammad?

[BankItDrew]

I'm going to talk evilution with Dawkins tonight @ a University in my area.

What question should I ask?

[surviva316]

I'm going to talk evilution with Dawkins tonight @ a University in my area.

What question should I ask?

why is god making all this bacteria immune to antibiotics?! does good love the clap?

[JKDS]

point and laugh saying "you're going to hell, you're going to hell..." in a childish manner with a little dance at the end

[mrhappy333]

Local newspaper article.
and the comments below..
http://www.courant.com/news/connecti...play-all.story