The #1 reason I'm voting for Kerry...... [Archive]

creanium

10-08-2004, 09:26 PM

See, and this is a reason to NOT vote for Kerry; it just depends on your position. This article is written with too much of a "shock-value," trying to convince you that if Bush were elected the whole country is going to die because of who he appoints to the supreme court.

This country is too-damned PC. Groups like the ACLU are running this country more than the people we elect. The whole country is becoming "sterile" and without any character. Things like "seperation of church and state" are being taken too far. The constitution only says that the country could not establish an official state religion (like in England). Maybe it's time a conservative court comes in and shakes things up.

Firefly4322

10-08-2004, 10:20 PM

Vote me for Supereme Court. I'll fix it....

-What?!? your suing that guy 1 mil for a bruise?? Get outta my court!

-$3000 fine for being a dumbass....

-quit being a wuss...

URQ

10-08-2004, 10:26 PM

Is that the best you can do?

Did either of you (4Pounder/SilverStone) bother to read it, or did you just disregard it because you don't agree with the source?

Care to explain your thoughts?

Just goes to show that people don't bother to think what effect the Supreme Court could have on our lives over the next 20-30 years..

Just face it MR WRONG Kerry Sucks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

KSpider

10-08-2004, 11:01 PM

CONSERVATIVE COURT? Well crap, lets just put everyone who isnt a catholic in jail. Anyone who doesn't believe in god goes to jail. Anyone who want's a choice should move out of the country... The court system is not supposed to be either way, the court system is supposed to be fair and think about the constitution and what is right for the people, not Catholicism. Nothing against catholics here, I just think our country is to biased and thinks that the only way of life is being a good christian or whatever... How well do you think someone who did not believe in god do running for presidancy?? but nooooo, there is a seperation of church and state...BS

madajb

10-08-2004, 11:34 PM

Catholism? Where the hell did that come from? =)
-ajb
(BTW: Kspider, you a Jayhawk?)

KSpider

10-08-2004, 11:40 PM

Well, i am a jayhawker since I was born in Kansas. I am a large fan of the Jayhawks, however, I went to the University of Richmond, not KU... yourself?

madajb

10-08-2004, 11:53 PM

Well, i am a jayhawker since I was born in Kansas. I am a large fan of the Jayhawks, however, I went to the University of Richmond, not KU... yourself?
Spent 6 years in Lawrence, TheWife got her Ph.D. there(which you can tell by her avatar, if she ever posted. heh)

-ajb

southOCgti

10-09-2004, 03:40 AM

i'm not so sure about kerry. i think he is too weak. as for bush, i think he is not afraid to stand up for the american people. i'm concerned with kerry because he hasn't given a clear answer in how he will handle the war in iraq. i don't exactly agree with bush either, but he seems to be the lesser of two evils.. maybe i'll just vote for nader again like i did when i thought i was a punk rock teenager :rolleyes:

KSpider

10-09-2004, 08:19 AM

Spent 6 years in Lawrence, TheWife got her Ph.D. there(which you can tell by her avatar, if she ever posted. heh)

-ajb

my latest mod:

Anonymous

10-09-2004, 12:26 PM

Have you seen Kerry's track record as a Senator of Massachusetts? sadly shakin my head here... ( I dont think that Kerry really cares)
If this that is an example of what he plans to do with the Presidency, I'm all set with who is in office right now.

BUSH '04
I don't know why I try but...

Please stop just listenening to their rhetoric. When I hear the latest spin on conservative radio and TV I undoubtable see it on forums not long after. It's not always as simple as yes or no. (http://slate.msn.com/id/2096127/) Want to look at a bad track record?

Cheney's Record (http://www.democrats.org/specialreports/cheney_record/)

or how about...
Bush's record (http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/04/23_resume.html)

'm not so sure about kerry. i think he is too weak. as for bush, i think he is not afraid to stand up for the american people. i'm concerned with kerry because he hasn't given a clear answer in how he will handle the war in iraq. i don't exactly agree with bush either, but he seems to be the lesser of two evils.. maybe i'll just vote for nader again like i did when i thought i was a punk rock teenager

I see this a lot too. "Kerry is weak" how so?
"Kerry says he has a plan but doesn't give a clear answer or details of his plan."
During both debates he has said you can get more details at johnkerry.com ( johnkerry.com) How many people actually looked? Heres his Plan (http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/iraq.html)
How much detail can he give in a 90 second response?

mike

10-09-2004, 01:43 PM

http://prodtn.cafepress.com/0/8633240_F_tn.jpg
http://prodtn.cafepress.com/3/8633333_F_tn.jpg
I think you guys need to be able to prove a better point against Kerry and for Bush instead of making crappy one liners against the author of this threads name

I'm voting for Kerry because once your at the bottom you have nowhere to go but up, and IMO Bush doesnt even deserve a chance at a second term.

creanium

10-09-2004, 03:04 PM

http://prodtn.cafepress.com/9/12803289_F_tn.jpg
http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/fonda300.gif

mike

10-09-2004, 03:22 PM

those are funny

creanium

10-09-2004, 04:26 PM

those are funny
:D

Tom (aka Godzilla)

10-09-2004, 07:34 PM

I did not read the article....the title alone let me know exactly what it was going to talk about. Katha Pollitt is a extremely liberal columnist, it's no surprise that she would want you to believe that a vote for Bush is a vote to kill babies. Now, if a conservative columnist were to express concern about Bush's choices for the Federal Judiciary, I might pay attention.

Bush hasn't exactly had a lot of success in getting his federal judges appointed, so what makes you think he'll be able to just grease his choices for the Supreme Court through the Senate? Right now in the 9th Circuit, we have a lot of Carter and Clinton appointees. It's referred to as the 9th Circus because of all the weird decisions that come from our very liberal Court of Appeals. After seeing their handiwork, I'd love to have some more conservative judges inserted into the equation.

Mr. Wrong, your statement that it's "Too bad alot of people don't consider this.." makes the assumption that everyone agrees with your opinions on those important social matters that the Supreme Court frequently weighs in on. This might be a shock to you, but a lot of the country thinks that there's nothing wrong with religion, in fact, many people think we need more of it. A lot of people think Roe v. Wade was the wrong decision, and they work very hard to make abortion illegal. Don't sell your fellow voters short all the time, maybe a lot of them have considered it and that's why they choose to vote for Bush.

And to Anonymous, you the links you posted go to the DNC web site and another site that is pro-left and littered with conspiracy theories...not exactly the best sources in this type of debate. Your other link, "yes or no", points to a quote by Bush Sr. about cutting defense spending; how does that prove or disprove that Kerry has a weak voting record on matters of defense spending?

madajb

10-09-2004, 07:52 PM

Katha Pollitt is a extremely liberal columnist, it's no surprise that she would want you to believe that a vote for Bush is a vote to kill babies.

I thought that was Cheney? =)

? Right now in the 9th Circuit, we have a lot of Carter and Clinton appointees. It's referred to as the 9th Circus because of all the weird decisions that come from our very liberal Court of Appeals. After seeing their handiwork, I'd love to have some more conservative judges inserted into the equation.

Well, looks like the Republicans didn't get the 9th Circuit split they wanted. Instead the commission recommened "restructuring".

-ajb

Tom (aka Godzilla)

10-09-2004, 07:54 PM

I thought that was Cheney? =)

Well, looks like the Republicans didn't get the 9th Circuit split they wanted. Instead the commission recommened "restructuring".

-ajb
A vote for Bush is a vote to kill Cheney?!?!? =P

I didn't hear about the split or restructuring....what was the split they wanted?

madajb

10-09-2004, 08:29 PM

A vote for Bush is a vote to kill Cheney?!?!? =P

No, Cheney is the baby killer, Bush is just the lackey.

I didn't hear about the split or restructuring....what was the split they wanted?
Basically (http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/sun/2004/oct/06/517625543.html).
From what I gather though, this happens every other Congressional session or so, and the major attorney associations are against it.
-ajb

mr_wrong

10-09-2004, 09:27 PM

Mr. Wrong, your statement that it's "Too bad alot of people don't consider this.." makes the assumption that everyone agrees with your opinions on those important social matters that the Supreme Court frequently weighs in on.

Though I do agree with the article, I make no assumption that people here do (or should) agree with my opinions. What I meant by that statement is exactly what it said. The fact is, alot of people don't consider the SC when choosing a President including some liberals and conservatives. You and I are probably among the few that do think about it. If you think we should have more conservative judges, fine. I respect that- I may not agree- but I respect your opinion, as you should mine.

This might be a shock to you, but a lot of the country thinks that there's nothing wrong with religion, in fact, many people think we need more of it. A lot of people think Roe v. Wade was the wrong decision, and they work very hard to make abortion illegal. Don't sell your fellow voters short all the time, maybe a lot of them have considered it and that's why they choose to vote for Bush.

I'M SHOCKED! You mean there's people in this country who think there's nothing wrong with religion!? Please.

I have no problem with any religion. Only when they try to cram their values down the rest of our throats. Believe it or not, I'm actually quite a devout Christian myself(:eek:yes. a LIBERAL Christian), but I keep it to myself- I respect all religions, and the right to practice them as long as they're not harming other people, so don't paint me to be some God/religion hating liberal.

Tom (aka Godzilla)

10-09-2004, 09:47 PM

Though I do agree with the article, I make no assumption that people here do (or should) agree with my opinions. What I meant by that statement is exactly what it said. The fact is, alot of people don't consider the SC when choosing a President including some liberals and conservatives. You and I are probably among the few that do think about it. If you think we should have more conservative judges, fine. I respect that- I may not agree- but I respect your opinion, as you should mine.

Fair enough, but a lot of people that I talk to do consider it....not all of them are afraid of it, as the article implies they should be.

I'M SHOCKED! You mean there's people in this country who think there's nothing wrong with religion!? Please.

I have no problem with any religion. Only when they try to cram their values down the rest of our throats. Believe it or not, I'm actually quite a devout Christian myself(:eek:yes. a LIBERAL Christian), but I keep it to myself- I respect all religions, and the right to practice them as long as they're not harming other people, so don't even try paint me to be some God/religion hating liberal.

Wasn't trying to paint you as anything, sorry if you took it that way. I was just trying to carry the theme that not everyone in the country should "be afraid, be very afraid" of a Bush influenced Supreme Court. Obviously, you disagree, as does approximately half of the country. Such is life.

madajb

10-09-2004, 10:21 PM

Wasn't the Supreme Court one of the questions in the debate?
-ajb

madajb

10-10-2004, 01:21 AM

You might also be interested in this (http://legalaffairs.org/issues/September-October-2004/feature_tushnet_sepoct04.html) (Legal Affairs is affiliated with Yale Law)
-ajb

Anonymous

10-10-2004, 01:25 AM

And to Anonymous, you the links you posted go to the DNC web site and another site that is pro-left and littered with conspiracy theories...not exactly the best sources in this type of debate. Your other link, "yes or no", points to a quote by Bush Sr. about cutting defense spending; how does that prove or disprove that Kerry has a weak voting record on matters of defense spending?

As far as their records, find me something that proves it wrong. The fact is that if you simply type in "Cheney's record" in google you'll find numerous sites with the information, they're not just making it up. As is the same with Bush. It might be a site with a leftist lean but are they not facts? I'm sure he's done some good things that they didn't bother to mention but I think all the points can be backed up. Its not like the RNC or a conservative site is going to be advertising the bad side of their canidate.

On the "yes or no" link... read past the quote and the first advertisement. It looks like it ends at the ad but it continues.(I'm assuming thats what happened)

The fact that you're willing to look at links and info that you know will more than likely swing left means(to me) that you're open minded and I give you 2 :tup: for that. An open mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Alan_One

10-10-2004, 01:29 AM

Fair enough, but a lot of people that I talk to do consider it....not all of them are afraid of it, as the article implies they should be.

I didn't read the article and I am very afraid. But that's just because I value a human beings right to make the choices that shape their lives. Whatever they may be. And each person bears their consequence.

Wasn't trying to paint you as anything, sorry if you took it that way. I was just trying to carry the theme that not everyone in the country should "be afraid, be very afraid" of a Bush influenced Supreme Court. Obviously, you disagree, as does approximately half of the country. Such is life.

Ah, religion... Wheren't they the ones that punished people for declaring the world was round? Isn't religion involved in that thing going on in Israel? Don't all those terrorists that hate this country and attack it use religion as their inspiration? In fact there are plenty of wars started by peoples with religion as the core of their cause.

Someone in another post a while back declared that the Separation of Church and State was to keep government out of church not church out of government... Look at what happens when you let religion into government... you get Israel or Suadi Arabia or Iran. You get a country divided along religious beliefs... and ultimately you get unhappy people doing desperate things in the name of their religion...

Do I wanna go to war? No, I don't want to go to war.

Do I want you to go to war? No, I don't want you to get hurt.

Lots of people use Sadaam's crimes as the justification to have invaded Iraq regardless of WMD's. Well, there are lots of countries more worthy of our "Help" than Iraq.

Back to the point: There's a reason I don't go to partisan websites for my 411.

I don't wanna be a Yahoo. I don't wanna be a yahoo on the right and I don't wanna be a yahoo on the left. And let's face it, If you agree with all the stuff you're reading on these sites you might be a Yahoo.

The people on the right can see the yahoos on the left and visa versa. Sometimes it's easy to loose sight of the grain of reason and get wrapped up in the heat of the fight.

mitssn

10-10-2004, 04:29 AM

Kerry does suck and he will lose.... mark my words. I need not go into detail besides this....

paultakeda

10-10-2004, 10:15 AM

I find it interesting that Bush mentioned the Dredd Scott case during the second debate. Essentially, the Supreme Court voted that Scott, as a former slave, did not have the rights of a citizen and therefore could not sue for his freedom after his master died.

This case helped form the party of Lincoln (the old Republican Party, which has very little to do with its evolution post-Taft except as a hearkening back to claim legitimacy), and Bush also used it to justify his reasons for appointing a Supreme Court judge that will not allow a human's right to be ignored.

This lead to the debate on a person's right to choose abortion. The crux of the argument is that Kerry supports a woman's right to choose, while Bush supports the position that a fertilized egg, regardless of its current embryonic and therefore non-sentient state, has a right to live, no matter the context of the pregnancy (diametric examples: promiscious woman, the one used by "pro-life" propaganda, versus 13-year-old rape, the one used by "pro-choice" propaganda).

The second debate was a draw concerning style, but the issues noted by the audience (I saw the last half hour of it) were well-chosen: it established the position of both candidates.

My own personal opinion is that if you are defending a non-sentient life form with human genetic material, then the number of dead sperm I have sent to spermicidal death pretty much condemns me to hell. :D

4pounder

10-10-2004, 10:58 AM

Did either of you (4Pounder/SilverStone) bother to read it, or did you just disregard it because you don't agree with the source?...

I'M SHOCKED! You mean there's people in this country who think there's nothing wrong with religion!? Please.

OK, sorry to leave you hanging but haven't been able to post for awhile. Now where do I start...

The author of the article you cited is a columnis for ''The Nation." Are you kidding me? Find me one article, just one that is in any way neutral and not leftward leaning. They are an admittedly leftward leaning magazine, you might as well cite something from Slate.com, or from the ACLU homepage, or NPR, take your pick.

And to top it off it came from the CBS website, about as credible as the New York TImes, which I really don't consider all that credible in recent history. This is what I meant when by criticizing your source. As for the crack on your name, I was just poking a little fun brother, nothing personal, I was just trying to lighten up the latest of SCE's many political threads which usually become heated. And on that note...

I have no problem with any religion. Only when they try to cram their values down the rest of our throats. Believe it or not, I'm actually quite a devout Christian myself(:eek:yes. a LIBERAL Christian), but I keep it to myself- I respect all religions, and the right to practice them as long as they're not harming other people, so don't paint me to be some God/religion hating liberal.

Thou shalt not vote John Kerry and his ketchup lady into office.
4pounder 2:10 :D

Satan4

10-10-2004, 11:48 AM

YAY, Lets get Kerry. I enjoy paying more taxes, less mods, less good food.

Tom (aka Godzilla)

10-10-2004, 12:25 PM

Yes, people have done terrible things in the name of religion, but there have also been many wonderful things done also. Religion doesn't scare me. Fanatics scare me, and not just the religious ones. Some Raiders fans really freak me out.

Paultakeda's explination of Bush's stance on abortion is a perfect example of a person's political leanings influencing what they believe to be the 'facts'. Paul dismisses a fertilized egg as just an non-sentient, embryonic mass of cells. But he neglects to include the part about that mass of cells being charged by the spark of life. Ask any married couple who's been trying to get pregnant for years without success.....one fertilized egg is as precious as any newborn to them.

The problem with going to partisan sites or writings that only include the negative side of a candidate is that you're robbing yourself of the whole picture. I get info from sources that lean both directions. But I don't grab some tidbit from a Republican site and run around beating my chest screaming "Kerry is a creep!" Both Kerry and Bush have negative things in their past, they're both human beings. I like what Bush has done in the past four years, I don't like what Kerry's been doing for the past four years. I like what Bush has planned for the next four years, I don't like Kerry's plan. To me, it's that simple.

Going into Iraq was a good call, not for one reason, but a huge list of reasons. WMD's, links to terrorism, crimes against humanity, non-compliance with U.N. resolutions, constant agression against U.S. forces in the region, agression against other countries in the region, lack of stability, and OIL....yes, I said OIL. Deal with it.

Yes, there are other countries deserving of our attention. Maybe they're next. Using that argument is flawed logic. We don't have the resources to fight them all at once.

"The Ketchup Lady"......that was great. Can I use that?

paultakeda

10-10-2004, 01:27 PM

Thanks for the "facts."

The fact of the matter is, I believe in the woman's right to her life more than I do an embryo that is not self-aware.

That is what I think, and you are free to think otherwise. Pro-choice is not the opposite of pro-life, though far too many believe it to be the case. Furthermore, I do not believe in a government establishing rules that restrict a woman's right to her life, and am in complete agreement with Kerry's explanation.

This is a basic divide in beliefs and my intent in posting was that it helps to differentiate the two candidate's positions. For any that have been undecided, this may be the deal-breaker that allows them to choose.

Choosing which platform matches their beliefs is their own right to choose. Heh.

Embryonic stem cells
Here's an interesting thought to ponder. Each one of these cells has the capacity to become a fully aware human being. If you were to allow these cells to develop separately, you would then have a number of genetically identical people: clones.

This now leads to the debate on cloning. Do any of these clones have the rights of the originating genetic contributor, the primary cell which was primary only because it was the one that was allowed to develop into a human being first?

The church considers such clones as abominations and our own president is opposed to it. Now if that's the case, these embryonic cells that contain the spark of life, are unwanted except for perhaps the one single one allowed to develop into a unique entity. The others? The others will be denied that right. But that runs contrary to the whole point of the spark of life argument. They deserve a chance to live as well, do they not? But they are abominations, clones of a unique entity, they are therefore lacking a soul. This spark is therefore a false one, and the cells should not be... (rinse and repeat)

Another thought: if all grew up and one committed a crime, the DNA would point to all of them. This would severely affect our justice system.

Pro-choice, pro-life, and abortion
Kerry states that he himself as a member of the Roman Catholic faith is opposed to abortion, but he cannot impose his beliefs on anyone else. He would rather keep abortion legal as a safe procedure available to everyone, but increase awareness on contraception, alternatives such as adoption, and so on. The #1 reason for teenage pregnancies is ignorance. Inform the public, and the number of unwanted pregnancies will drop precipitously and make abortion a rare occurrence.

Bear in mind that when abortion was illegal, it happened anyway, and it caused the unwarranted pain, suffering, and death of many women. Also note that the wealthy will still be capable of having the procedure performed safely while the poor? The poor won't have it covered by insurance and we shall see a return to the number of dangerous procedures of the past.

A modest proposal
Unwanted pregnancies will be aborted, the embryo removed from the female and left in statis and established as a stem cell line for scientific research. One embryonic stem cell will legally be given the spark of life and be preserved for a future date where it can be matured and raised by the state into a fully living entity. All other stem cells are "abominations" and therefore cleared for scientific research resulting in their destruction.

Done.

Anonymous

10-10-2004, 01:56 PM

I like what Bush has done in the past four years, I don't like what Kerry's been doing for the past four years. I like what Bush has planned for the next four years, I don't like Kerry's plan. To me, it's that simple.

I think this is why I always try to argue my side. It's been pretty well voiced what most people don't like about Bush. And it's easy to find information to back up these points, even from non-partisan sites like factcheck.org. When I search for information on Kerry's record I usually find info disputing what the RNC is saying about his record.

I do try to be open minded though, not because I will likely change my mind but so I can try and understand. To try and understand why anyone would vote for or support Bush because from my eyes he's been part of the most corrupt, secretive, deceptive, failed administration. So I find myself saying how can you when... ___ and____ and_____.

So why do you(all that will be voting for him) back Bush? Godzilla, you say you don't like what Kerry's been doing for the past 4 years. Can you tell me some specifics? I'm not trying to rile anyone. I'm honestly trying to just understand, cause when I listen to the reasons the RNC gives to not vote for Kerry it's most often easily found to be a complete distortion bordering on a lie. When I listen to conservative radio its the same thing. They're all reading from the same well coordinated playbook. My thought is that you guys must have reasons other than the spin I hear from the RNC and conservative radio/TV.

Going into Iraq was a good call, not for one reason, but a huge list of reasons. WMD's, links to terrorism, crimes against humanity, non-compliance with U.N. resolutions, constant agression against U.S. forces in the region, agression against other countries in the region, lack of stability, and OIL....yes, I said OIL. Deal with it.

I read the other day on somewhere about how Bush's administration originally wanted to name Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Iraqi Liberation(O.I.L.). Can't back this with fact and since I can't remember the source shows I didn't take it too seriously but I though it was interesting.

madajb

10-10-2004, 04:16 PM

My own personal opinion is that if you are defending a non-sentient life form with human genetic material, then the number of dead sperm I have sent to spermicidal death pretty much condemns me to hell. :D
Since sperm are only half a human, wouldn't that just condem you to purgatory....?
=)
-ajb
(Where am I going, and why am I in this handbasket?)

madajb

10-10-2004, 04:27 PM

The #1 reason for teenage pregnancies is ignorance.

Or..you know...teenage boys...

Bear in mind that when abortion was illegal, it happened anyway,

This is a weak argument, and you ought to know it, paul.
"Murder is illegal, but people are going to do it anyway, so let's legalize it"?
C'mon now.
Note: The above in no way reflects my own feelings on abortion, but is used as a rhetorical device to point out the illogic of "X is illegal but people do it anyway, so we should legalize it". Feel free to substitute {Pot, underage drinking, speeding}.

-ajb

madajb

10-10-2004, 04:32 PM

So why do you(all that will be voting for him) back Bush?
"Don't change horses in the middle of the race"
To wit, I think invading Iraq was a poorly implemented decision. However, Sentator Kerry's nebulous plans for Iraq do not inspire confidence, and quite franky, I think he will muddle the situation even more.

-ajb

paultakeda

10-10-2004, 05:07 PM

Or..you know...teenage boys...

Ignorant teenage boys. ;)

This is a weak argument, and you ought to know it, paul.

About as weak as anti-choice (pro-life is a euphemism) arguments, but you're right, that doesn't justify my use of it. Let's just say that I prioritize sentient life over non-sentient life, but I will not impose my beliefs on others, and will allow them to choose their own path as I choose mine.

But regardless of that, what'd you think of my modest proposal? I thought it a fairly worthy compromise that should satisfy both sides of the argument. Of course, the cost to government for preserving the single embryo of unwanted pregnancies granted a legal right to life would probably mean more taxes for keeping it in statis and/or maturing it and putting the resulting human through a foster care system. Scientific research can fund the use of cloned copies, which could be public or private, but either will generate profit and therefore are not part of the equation.

madajb

10-10-2004, 06:03 PM

Ignorant teenage boys. ;)

heh.

But regardless of that, what'd you think of my modest proposal?

Hmm...with legalized abortion, are the Catholics still outbreeding the Protestants?

However, as a small government type of guy, I'd have to vote against such a proposal. Having the government take on the consequences of poorly thought out moral choices...well, I suppose we could always eat them.

-ajb

paultakeda

10-10-2004, 09:54 PM

You just defined one of the hypocrisies of the neocon platform: anti-abortion BUT against social reform for education (see above about ignorance) and more importantly, no funding for orphanages and other social projects to deal with unwanted childen.

And considering this hyprocrisy, we may well face the very reality to which Swift addressed in his Modest Proposal (http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html)... so, yeah, we can always just eat them.

Monster8V

10-10-2004, 10:05 PM

So, how did my chargers do today?? Wasnt near a TV today...

creanium

10-10-2004, 10:18 PM

So, how did my chargers do today?? Wasnt near a TV today...
they won, 34-21

Monster8V

10-10-2004, 10:30 PM

they won, 34-21

YEAH!!!

mike

10-10-2004, 11:24 PM

heh.

However, as a small government type of guy, I'd have to vote against such a proposal. Having the government take on the consequences of poorly thought out moral choices...well, I suppose we could always eat them.

-ajb
How are those Soylent Greens tasting there Alan? As long as Charlton Heston doesn't catch on to you.

madajb

10-10-2004, 11:49 PM

How are those Soylent Greens tasting there Alan? As long as Charlton Heston doesn't catch on to you.
Wrong literary reference.. =)
-ajb

madajb

10-10-2004, 11:57 PM

You just defined one of the hypocrisies of the neocon platform: anti-abortion BUT against social reform for education (see above about ignorance) and more importantly, no funding for orphanages and other social projects to deal with unwanted childen.

One could argue that the absence of poorhouses and orphanages is a failure of the "War on Poverty" and Great Society programs which many poorhouses and church run orphanages did not survive.
-ajb

madajb

10-10-2004, 11:58 PM

So, how did my chargers do today?? Wasnt near a TV today...
Should be watching the 'Skins not the Chargers...
-ajb

paultakeda

10-11-2004, 12:18 AM

One could argue that the absence of poorhouses and orphanages is a failure of the "War on Poverty" and Great Society programs which many poorhouses and church run orphanages did not survive.
-ajb

We're better of if such programs concentrated on education. Basic sex education and knowledge (and availability) of contraception is quite adequate in keeping the number of unwanted pregnancies among the affluent members of society much lower than their peers in less desirable circumstances.

PDVR6

10-11-2004, 12:21 AM

YAY, Lets get Kerry. I enjoy paying more taxes, less mods, less good food.

Interesting, lets tax for what we spend opposed to cutting taxes and still spending. Where should we get the money?

paultakeda

10-11-2004, 12:30 AM

We make our children pay for it. Live in the now, dude. Live in the now.

madajb

10-11-2004, 12:31 AM

We're better of if such programs concentrated on education. Basic sex education and knowledge (and availability) of contraception is quite adequate in keeping the number of unwanted pregnancies among the affluent members of society much lower than their peers in less desirable circumstances.
Which probably has more to do with the very fact that they _are_ affluent, than it does with any sex education program(contraception or abstinenced based).
Myself, I don't think schools have any business teaching it one way or the other.
-ajb
(When the majority of kids can pass a basic skills test, then we can teach sex ed. Until then, we have other priorities in schools)

madajb

10-11-2004, 12:31 AM

We make our children pay for it. Live in the now, dude. Live in the now.
It's the American Way.
-ajb

paultakeda

10-11-2004, 09:30 AM

Which probably has more to do with the very fact that they _are_ affluent, than it does with any sex education program(contraception or abstinenced based).
Myself, I don't think schools have any business teaching it one way or the other.
-ajb
(When the majority of kids can pass a basic skills test, then we can teach sex ed. Until then, we have other priorities in schools)

Sure, sure. Education, period, which includes in its suite sex education, must be a priority for this society. Uneducated, unskilled populations cause nothing but strife.

paultakeda

10-11-2004, 10:16 AM

So I'm at home sick with the flu my girlfriend gave me and I turn on the TV. It's usually set to KTLA since I watch the morning news show while getting ready for work, but it was later than usual and Maury was already on. The subject? Paternity tests.

In a rather stark reminder of just what we are talking about when it concerns the ignorance of sex and procreation, there are women who have gone through 3 to 9 tests on the show and have yet to find the father of their child.

Promiscuity and perhaps even ignorance on just how a person gets pregnant makes these women come on to a show to basically embarass themselves for the entertainment of the masses. Just how many of those they tested actually had sex that could potentially lead to a pregnancy? How many think oral sex is enough? How many don't understand the point of a condom? Or the pill? Is it even possible that a woman be so promiscuous as to have at least 10 partners within a period that would result in a baby nine months later? Or is she just completely stupid about how one makes a baby? Maybe she knows just how, and she definitely has had that many partners, but the very fact she has so many partners... this is depressing.

Alan_One

10-11-2004, 10:21 AM

Yes, people have done terrible things in the name of religion, but there have also been many wonderful things done also.

Okay, I named a few "bad" things (huge understatement) now please help me see the overall good. Name a couple. Don't get me wrong, I feel that religion has a powerful effect on community and culture but progress (in science especially) has happened despite religion.

Paultakeda's explination of Bush's stance on abortion is a perfect example of a person's political leanings influencing what they believe to be the 'facts'. Paul dismisses a fertilized egg as just an non-sentient, embryonic mass of cells. But he neglects to include the part about that mass of cells being charged by the spark of life. Ask any married couple who's been trying to get pregnant for years without success.....one fertilized egg is as precious as any newborn to them.

I'm sorry things aren't working in your favor at this moment. But the "Spark" is exactly that, a spark. Electrical current. The same stuff we use to kick people back into life with Defibrillators when their heart decides to take a break. A person is the sum of her/his experiences. That's where the soul comes from. Not every spark has christian beliefs. It's not that I don't value life. It's that I value life.

Going into Iraq was a good call, not for one reason, but a huge list of reasons. WMD's, links to terrorism, crimes against humanity, non-compliance with U.N. resolutions, constant agression against U.S. forces in the region, agression against other countries in the region, lack of stability, and OIL....yes, I said OIL. Deal with it.

Yes, there are other countries deserving of our attention. Maybe they're next. Using that argument is flawed logic. We don't have the resources to fight them all at once.

There's nothing flawed about pointing out the fact that this war wasn't about terrorists and WMD's. This war is about political agendas and making money for the friends of this administration. I don't know how people can continue to use "Well, S. Hussein was an evil man" as enough justification to WASTE a single American life. Sorry, it doesn't wash for me. U.N. sanctions were working. There was NO weapons program worth going to war for. The proof is in the pudding. If you can't see the cause at this point I hope you can at least see the effects.

I said it before and I'll say it untill the day I drop my vote in the box. Bush needs to go. And at the moment the only other viable choice is Kerry. He may not be a perfect man but he's not bush.

Lets hope the "people" actually get to vote our next president into office.

Go Chargers!!!

Satan4

10-11-2004, 11:56 AM

And you think spending will go down when he hires the 1 million social workers back? And start paying out heavy welfare. Makes more sense to me.

Satan4

10-11-2004, 12:00 PM

Hell if you are so pro taxes, lets just instate VAT 17% flat tax and 60% income tax for everyone. We can become Europe, $8 a gallon for gas.

Alan_One

10-11-2004, 12:54 PM

And you think spending will go down when he hires the 1 million social workers back? And start paying out heavy welfare. Makes more sense to me.

Canned response to canned response: I'd rather spend it here than there. Here it will save American lives not waste them by meddling in the social development of another country for profit.

Hell if you are so pro taxes, lets just instate VAT 17% flat tax and 60% income tax for everyone. We can become Europe, $8 a gallon for gas.

When did I say I was so "Pro taxes"? That's like me saying you are Pro Deficit.

For the record I'm not Pro taxes I'm Pro spending money wisely and conserving for our future. Someone pledged to put aside a few billion dollars for social security. I've been dumping $ into SS for the past 16+ years and I don't see Bush even acknowledging the problem. Most explicitly by his actions. Why should I believe anything he said when he didn't keep any of his promises from his first campaign?

Anyone recall "Clean Coal"? WTF was that?

I'm not looking forward to spending European prices for gas. The $2.50/Gal I spend is already painfull. But it wouldn't be so bad if big oil hadn't been blocking new technologies for the past 40+ years. It's only thanks to other technologies like cell phone battery tech that electrical power has even become viable. And even then, we're using oil to charge those batteries.

When George Bush senior said "Evil Empire" I believe he was talking about his own family.

Satan4

10-11-2004, 02:54 PM

I love writing in these forums, the responces are so pationate.

madajb

10-11-2004, 03:13 PM

Is it even possible that a woman be so promiscuous as to have at least 10 partners within a period that would result in a baby nine months later? Or is she just completely stupid about how one makes a baby? Maybe she knows just how, and she definitely has had that many partners, but the very fact she has so many partners... this is depressing.

Did you never go to High School?
But, yeah, 10 seems unreasonable, but I suppose, given a 6 week variance on the due date (3 weeks early, 3 weeks late), it's conceivable(ha!), especially if your grasp of what(or who) you did 9 months ago is fuzzy.
-ajb

madajb

10-11-2004, 03:19 PM

Sure, sure. Education, period, which includes in its suite sex education, must be a priority for this society. Uneducated, unskilled populations cause nothing but strife.
Online forums are a perfect example of the failure of sex education(and no, not in that way).
We have people who can't spell basic 5 letter words that you learn in second grade! Punctuation exists merely to take up space on the keyboard.
And this is stuff you learn(and hopefully use), every day of your school career. If they can't master that, what hope do we have that sex education will sink in?
However, I might not opposed to a sex ed chapter in a health class(provided that it taught basic facts).
-ajb
(Man, I hope I don't have any typos in this message. heh)

madajb

10-11-2004, 03:33 PM

Okay, I named a few "bad" things (huge understatement) now please help me see the overall good. Name a couple. Don't get me wrong, I feel that religion has a powerful effect on community and culture but progress (in science especially) has happened despite religion.

As much as I hate religious arguments:
The preservation of the sum of human knowledge during the dark ages in Europe would not have happened without the monasteries.
Without this knowledge, the Renaissance would have either A) not happened or B) been radically different.
Even a delay of a 100 years means you and I are having this debate on parchment paper, not computers.

-ajb

creanium

10-11-2004, 05:00 PM

Online forums are a perfect example of the failure of sex education(and no, not in that way).
We have people who can't spell basic 5 letter words that you learn in second grade! Punctuation exists merely to take up space on the keyboard.
And this is stuff you learn(and hopefully use), every day of your school career. If they can't master that, what hope do we have that sex education will sink in?
However, I might not opposed to a sex ed chapter in a health class(provided that it taught basic facts).
-ajb
(Man, I hope I don't have any typos in this message. heh)
Heh ... your last sentence is missing something ... :)

madajb

10-11-2004, 05:12 PM

Heh ... your last sentence is missing something ... :)
Or is it just subtle humor?
-ajb

w00sh

10-11-2004, 05:34 PM

Kerry = Liberal Wienie

creanium

10-11-2004, 08:31 PM

Or is it just subtle humor?
-ajb
Heh ... I couldn't tell because sometimes it's hard to pick up on your sarcasm when I'm just reading what you right. ;)

allizard

10-11-2004, 10:23 PM

Holy crap... I was away for a couple of days and look at all these posts!!!!

I'm going to let you guys duke it out. I'm staying out this time. Have fun...

Vote Bush and Jesus 04' ... hahahah I like it. :tup:

madajb

10-12-2004, 03:01 AM

Heh ... I couldn't tell because sometimes it's hard to pick up on your sarcasm when I'm just reading what you right. ;)
Well, I've noticed since I'm moved to a laptop, my typing has gotten pretty crappy. It's hard to keep your hands on the home row when you are leaned over on the couch.
heh.
-ajb

Tom (aka Godzilla)

10-12-2004, 09:02 AM

The fact of the matter is, I believe in the woman's right to her life more than I do an embryo that is not self-aware.

Birth control via abortion? I find that to be a horrid and callous idea.

Choosing which platform matches their beliefs is their own right to choose. Heh.

pun intended?

Embryonic stem cells
Here's an interesting thought to ponder. Each one of these cells has the capacity to become a fully aware human being. If you were to allow these cells to develop separately, you would then have a number of genetically identical people: clones.

You're talking about laboratory expirements and I'm talking about the natural reproductive cycle. I'm guessing you're not a religious person?

Pro-choice, pro-life, and abortion
He would rather keep abortion legal as a safe procedure available to everyone, but increase awareness on contraception, alternatives such as adoption, and so on.

That's the quintessential Kerry; don't really take a stand on anything, be kinda wishy-washy and try to keep everyone happy. Well, we know how that usually turns out.

A modest proposal
Unwanted pregnancies will be aborted, the embryo removed from the female and left in statis and established as a stem cell line for scientific research. One embryonic stem cell will legally be given the spark of life and be preserved for a future date where it can be matured and raised by the state into a fully living entity. All other stem cells are "abominations" and therefore cleared for scientific research resulting in their destruction.

Matured and raised by the state? Jeebus, have you been watching "Soldier" too much? What's next, buy you're next state-raised child on ebay?

http://www.kinoweb.de/film99/Soldier/pix/sol3.jpg

Keeping up with this thread is taking too much work....

paultakeda

10-12-2004, 10:54 AM

Birth control via abortion? I find that to be a horrid and callous idea.

You missed my point. Birth control is best attained through education, have you not been reading the thread? Abortion is one of the options, and should be one of the options as a last resort. And should it come to that, you can preserve the embryo. That's what you want, right? To preserve life?

As for raising it by the state... well, gee and golly, how exactly were you planning to deal with unwanted pregnancies in a world where abortion is illegal, anyhow?

No, really. Let's hear it. A woman is pregant, she can't have an abortion, she is forced to have the child. She does not want the child and the child is now a ward of the state, correct? Where in all that do I say the child is treated as a subhuman and raised to become Kurt Russell in a bad movie?

You can't just eliminate an option and ignore the result of that elimination. So please, let's hear about what you think should be done with all these babies.

You're talking about laboratory expirements and I'm talking about the natural reproductive cycle. I'm guessing you're not a religious person?

Maybe that's your problem. We're dealing with the issue of what to do with an unwanted pregnancy, and you're caught up on how the baby is made. We're past that, the baby has been made, and it is unwanted. Now what?

As for religion.. I wonder how you feel about the birth-control pill and the condom. There was a time when religion was at the forefront of science, it's what allowed us to keep the knowledge of the Roman Empire alive through the Dark Ages (see Alan's post above). The problem, of course, was when science left the monastery and became it's own institution. The competition has forced organized religion (quite different from a person's own faith) to go on a different tack, and the fight between these two institutions has caused nothing but grief.

That's the quintessential Kerry; don't really take a stand on anything, be kinda wishy-washy and try to keep everyone happy. Well, we know how that usually turns out.

How is it wishy-washy to educate a population on sex as a form of birth control? It's what keeps the educated from getting pregnant all the time. How is it wishy-washy to teach someone on the use of a condom, a diaphragm, a birth-control pill? Why do you feel the need to add wishy-washy or flip-floppy to anything related to Kerry, even if such use is completely ludicrous for the topic at hand?

Alan_One

10-12-2004, 01:38 PM

As much as I hate religious arguments:
The preservation of the sum of human knowledge during the dark ages in Europe would not have happened without the monasteries.
Without this knowledge, the Renaissance would have either A) not happened or B) been radically different.
Even a delay of a 100 years means you and I are having this debate on parchment paper, not computers.
-ajb

You're leaving out everything that was destroyed. The renaissance was a rebellion against the notions that the human form should be covered and that it inspired sin - an explosion of art and culture much to the chagrin of Rome at its outset. Many monks rebelled against those notions and were persecuted for doing so. The vast majority of what was "preserved" was only what was in line with the doctrine of the time. I'm not discounting your point. I'm only saying that if that period was so "preserving" why did we need a renaissance. And by every historical account the time before the renaissance was a time of oppression.

It seems to me (and I might have said this before) religion is always trying to keep someone from doing something. And I hate it when someone tries to tell me how I should spend my brief stint in life. The people that know me know that I respect them and their right to do as they see fit. I don't believe we need religion to impose our moralities. We don't all share the same beliefs. It's unfair and un-American to do so. "Your freedom to swing your arms ends at the tip of my nose" - that's not religion, that's Ben Franklin.

madajb

10-12-2004, 02:04 PM

? Where in all that do I say the child is treated as a subhuman and raised to become Kurt Russell in a bad movie?

Hey, I liked Soldier. It's Snake Pleskin without all the annoying talking. heh.
-ajb

madajb

10-12-2004, 02:24 PM

You're leaving out everything that was destroyed.
... Many monks rebelled against those notions and were persecuted for doing so. The vast majority of what was "preserved" was only what was in line with the doctrine of the time. I'm not discounting your point. I'm only saying that if that period was so "preserving" why did we need a renaissance. ...

Yes, and I left it out deliberately. You didn't ask for a dissertation, you asked for a good thing that religon did. So I gave you one. heh.
To answer your point, the Renaissance came _after_ the Dark Ages. The monks were attempting preserve culture _during_ the Dark Ages in the (apparently not vain) hope that enlightenment would come again. Sure, things were lost, but a lot was saved. Without organized religon, without the abbots, without the dedication of the scribers, more would have been lost.
And you are right, many monks were castigated for doing what they did during the dark ages, some ignored order from Rome to destroy records and sure, some probably complied. But some didn't, and that's a good thing that religon has done.

Why did we need a renaissance? So we could become the enlightened society we are now, natch. =)

It seems to me (and I might have said this before) religion is always trying to keep someone from doing something.

Yeah, I hate it when religon tells people not to murder, or steal, or treat people with kindness. =)
It seems to me that you are confusing religon, with the corrupt institutions that perpetuate it.

I don't believe we need religion to impose our moralities. We don't all share the same beliefs. It's unfair and un-American to do so.
Yes, we do. It's the details we disagree on.
Societies need a moral compass. They need someone(or something) to guide them to do the right thing.
What we don't need is a Church telling us who we can marry, or what apparatus we can use in the bedroom, or what foods we can eat. See above about confusing religon with institutions.

-ajb

Alan_One

10-12-2004, 02:38 PM

Yes, we do. It's the details we disagree on.
Societies need a moral compass. They need someone(or something) to guide them to do the right thing.
What we don't need is a Church telling us who we can marry, or what apparatus we can use in the bedroom, or what foods we can eat. See above about confusing religon with institutions.

-ajb

Precisely. The details. And I respectfully note that in your statement you declare "Societies need a moral compass. They need someone (or something) to guide them to do the right thing."

Our differences lie in the way we're proposing we develop that compass.

Everything expires. Why would you not consider the notion that religion as a moral compass has expired? We need to develop our moral compass from within. I believe the external compass of religion has been perverted beyond repair by those seeking to impose their compass on another.

Too much wrong in the name of religion.

And please note that I'm saying that we should individually develop our own morality through interaction with our environment (socially and politically). We didn't need religion to tell us that murder was wrong. Murder has been wrong since before religion.

The world is not perfect. The world is perfect chaos. The time for imposing is over. We need to develop.

madajb

10-12-2004, 02:57 PM

Everything expires. Why would you not consider the notion that religion as a moral compass has expired? We need to develop our moral compass from within. I believe the external compass of religion has been perverted beyond repair by those seeking to impose their compass on another.

Maybe, I don't know. I'm not a theologian.

And please note that I'm saying that we should individually develop our own morality through interaction with our environment (socially and politically). We didn't need religion to tell us that murder was wrong. Murder has been wrong since before religion.

You have more faith in your fellow humans than I, I suspect. Personally, I think that the majority of the world need to be told what to do and what to believe. Those on the other end of the bell curve, as it were.
I'm not sure that murder is wrong outside religion, since I'm not sure humans have ever had a time outside religion. I think that since the moment we descended from the trees we needed something to explain those noises that go bump in the night.

The world is not perfect. The world is perfect chaos.
Hence, the search for something to explain it all. =)

-ajb

Alan_One

10-12-2004, 03:07 PM

Maybe, I don't know. I'm not a theologian.

You have more faith in your fellow humans than I, I suspect. Personally, I think that the majority of the world need to be told what to do and what to believe. Those on the other end of the bell curve, as it were.
I'm not sure that murder is wrong outside religion, since I'm not sure humans have ever had a time outside religion. I think that since the moment we descended from the trees we needed something to explain those noises that go bump in the night.

Hence, the search for something to explain it all. =)

-ajb

Science - you phucker.

Religion as I perceive it is the placebo. Science needs to step in so that instead of fearing the unknown (things that go bump in the night) we eliminate it by knowing. But then we have people trying to teach creationism in our schools?

What do you think? Do you think we're doing ourselves right by discounting science for superstition?

And remember that christianity is not the only religion in this world.

There's also Falun Gong (http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/flg.htm)

;)

paultakeda

10-12-2004, 03:15 PM

Science is its own placebo if blindly applied in much the same way organized religion has exploited the faithful.

paultakeda

10-12-2004, 03:20 PM

Speaking of which. (http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i21/21b02001.htm)

Alan_One

10-12-2004, 03:22 PM

Science is its own placebo if blindly applied in much the same way organized religion has exploited the faithful.

Let's not overdo it. Let's just say empirical over superstition. We're not doing anyone any good by asking questions like "If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it..."

The point stays the same. Science is still a very much evolving thing. We allow for understandings to change and evolve as we learn more. But there is a point at which everything is understood. We're far from it. We may never reach it. But it is out there.

paultakeda

10-12-2004, 03:33 PM

madajb

10-12-2004, 03:35 PM

Science - you phucker.
Religion as I perceive it is the placebo. Science needs to step in so that instead of fearing the unknown (things that go bump in the night) we eliminate it by knowing. But then we have people trying to teach creationism in our schools?
What do you think? Do you think we're doing ourselves right by discounting science for superstition?
And remember that christianity is not the only religion in this world.
There's also Falun Gong (http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/flg.htm)
;)
Science is not moral. Science just is.
There is no scientific law that says "Thou shalt not kill".
While I am a member of a religious institution, I see no particular reason that it cannot be replaced with a secular framework.
The key to all of it, however, is consistency.
I see your "pure chaos" as a transition period. One where we as a society have not laid out all the rules governing behaviour. However, we need to accept that society cannot survive on a purely science basis. Rules that most of us agree on are neccesary.

-ajb

Alan_One

10-12-2004, 03:46 PM

I would say the same for religion.

Religion as a faith has always evolved. Organized religion changes, albeit slowly and sometimes kicking and screaming (hundreds of years to forgive Galileo, but they did), but religion and faith will evolve if they are to remain a part of a society.

Putting your trust in something is different from blindly believing in something. Faith is different from edicts and sanctions. Reason is different from stubbornly insisting a fact is correct simply because nothing has disproven it.

Faith and reason require you to believe with your eyes open.

I think that "Kicking and Screaming" might be the understatement of this thread. More like lobbing and burning.

I can't argue against faith because faith defies reason. You can believe something despite proof of the contrary. That's the hook. Hope. You can close your eyes and hope. You can close your eyes and believe. Nothing about faith requires you to have your eyes open. Faith gives hope to the hopeless... but at what price?

I was flipping the channels and I ran across a TV evangelist explaining how Noah's ark was so immense... the square footage numbers he was giving were immense... especially for an area where timber was so scarce. He went as far to note how Noah would have had space for the dinosaurs... as long as they were baby dinosaurs. The man had an illustration showing dinosaurs in the interior of this immense wooden ark. I've posted about this before. No one has answered me as to how these types of claims help us evolve as a society.

Saying that religion eventually accepted Galileo isn't proof that it has done good by its people. It only underlines the fact that it has stood in the way of progress more often than it has been at the front of its evolution.

I can't continue an argument against faith. It's silly. You'll believe what you believe until something happens in your life to make you believe something different.

Alan_One

10-12-2004, 03:55 PM

Science is not moral. Science just is.
There is no scientific law that says "Thou shalt not kill".
While I am a member of a religious institution, I see no particular reason that it cannot be replaced with a secular framework.
The key to all of it, however, is consistency.
I see your "pure chaos" as a transition period. One where we as a society have not laid out all the rules governing behaviour. However, we need to accept that society cannot survive on a purely science basis. Rules that most of us agree on are neccesary.

-ajb

I'll quote myself from a previous post in this thread

"And please note that I'm saying that we should individually develop our own morality through interaction with our environment (socially and politically). We didn't need religion to tell us that murder was wrong. Murder has been wrong since before religion."

I have to disagree with your statement "we need to accept that society cannot survive on a purely science basis". You can't limit the definition of science to physics. We also have social sciences, philosophy, psychology, political science. All of the sciences merging into the true religion of man. Understanding of our vessel, understanding of our landscape, Understanding of our role in each others lives.

madajb

10-12-2004, 04:00 PM

No one has answered me as to how these types of claims help us evolve as a society.
.
How does it help us evolve now? It doesn't.
How did it help us evolve back then?:
The story of a wrathful God promoted an Our group vs. Their group mentality in preference to a singular Me vs. You mentality.
This in turn encouraged us to stick together, pool our resources, share knowledge, and eventually transform into a cohesive unit.
This cohesive unit, and the patterns it spawned are _directly_ responsible for the cooperation that lead to propogation of _every_ scientific advance we enjoy today.
In short, were it not for a creation myth, we would have no society, period.

Denigrating religion is all well and good, but to deny it's historical impact in terms of societal evolution is quite simply wrong.

-ajb

madajb

10-12-2004, 04:03 PM

I have to disagree with your statement "we need to accept that society cannot survive on a purely science basis". You can't limit the definition of science to physics. We also have social sciences, philosophy, psychology, political science. All of the sciences merging into the true religion of man. Understanding of our vessel, understanding of our landscape, Understanding of our role in each others lives.
Those are not science. Those are all theology by a different name.
They cannot be proven(or disproven) and thus do not qualify.

-ajb

Alan_One

10-12-2004, 04:18 PM

How does it help us evolve now? It doesn't.
How did it help us evolve back then?:
The story of a wrathful God promoted an Our group vs. Their group mentality in preference to a singular Me vs. You mentality.
This in turn encouraged us to stick together, pool our resources, share knowledge, and eventually transform into a cohesive unit.
This cohesive unit, and the patterns it spawned are _directly_ responsible for the cooperation that lead to propogation of _every_ scientific advance we enjoy today.
In short, were it not for a creation myth, we would have no society, period.

Denigrating religion is all well and good, but to deny it's historical impact in terms of societal evolution is quite simply wrong.

-ajb

Where does the rest of the non christian world fit into your assessment of our societal evolution? not every society was born of creationism.

I don't recall having discounted religions role in our evolution. Do I have to quote myself again? Religion expiring? sound familiar?

The question I'm asking is about now. Right now. today. Trying to twist my point into a blanket that covers all history is an effective (and currently very popular) way of trying to inspire the simple to latch on to ONE point to discount an idea as a whole while ignoring what that point is built on.

Like you said, "How does it help us evolve now? It doesn't."

It doesn't.

Alan_One

10-12-2004, 04:20 PM

Those are not science. Those are all theology by a different name.
They cannot be proven(or disproven) and thus do not qualify.

-ajb

That is YOUR opinion.

The wolrd around you begs to differ.

Those sciences are still evolving but they are science. Your definition of science might need to be updated

;)

paultakeda

10-12-2004, 04:44 PM

Science and religion both evolve and both have had a hand in the development of culture. They can co-exist, can be considered one and the same, and can also be at odds with one another.

You really don't want me to pull my archaeologist trump card, now, do you?

madajb

10-12-2004, 05:17 PM

Where does the rest of the non christian world fit into your assessment of our societal evolution? not every society was born of creationism.

Creationism != Creation Myth.
Find me a major world religion that doesn't have a creation myth.

The question I'm asking is about now. Right now. today.

Right now. Today. Religion is one of the structures that holds civilization up.
Belief in a common system holds groups together and thus aids evolution.
I'm not sure how much clearer I can say it.

Like you said, "How does it help us evolve now? It doesn't."

It doesn't.
Naughty naughty, taking quotes out of context, you _are_ ready for the election. =)

-ajb

madajb

10-12-2004, 05:20 PM

That is YOUR opinion.
The wolrd around you begs to differ.
Those sciences are still evolving but they are science. Your definition of science might need to be updated
;)
The world around you begs to differ with your opinion about religion.
Does that make you wrong? =)

-ajb

madajb

10-12-2004, 05:21 PM

You really don't want me to pull my archaeologist trump card, now, do you?
Only if you've handed in that thesis....
=)
-ajb

paultakeda

10-12-2004, 05:25 PM

;)

Alan_One

10-13-2004, 12:02 AM

Creationism != Creation Myth.
Find me a major world religion that doesn't have a creation myth.

Right now. Today. Religion is one of the structures that holds civilization up.
Belief in a common system holds groups together and thus aids evolution.
I'm not sure how much clearer I can say it.

Well Alan I never took you for a religious fanatic :rolleyes: . And the Buddhist "Creation Myth" isn't quite in line w/ what some Christian interests are trying to work into the curiculum in some states. (speaking of out of context) We're still talking about the expiration of religion right? I mean if you're still trying to push religion right now despite the need for a non religious system where we can - by proven fact and on empirical evidence (not supplied to us by some nebulous character that hasn't made an appearance in a couple thousand years) - manage our evolution then there's a spot in Waco that opened up in the nineties that's been vacant since... Ribbing ribbing ribbing :p

We don't believe in a common system. From this exchange it's obvious. But we Do agree - I hope - on the Atomic Weight of Hydrogen (The atomic weight of hydrogen is 1.0079 grams per mole). This illustrates my point best.

I've read of the Torah, the Bible, the teachings of the Buddha, and a little of the Koran. As philosophical text. I understand the role that they've played throughout history. Not the first religious texts to have graced civilization and certainly not the last.

I've never said religion was all bad. I'm sorry if you got that impression. I just think it's place is now more the case of culture and tradition. It has to be resposible to our society and is in deep need of an overhaul. Gays, Marriage, Women Clergy, Science (ie Genetics), Abortion(not as a form of birth control). Standing in the way of progress or descrimination based of prejudice or gender is no longer a nurturing and cultural influence.

If you need an external compass then you'll always be subject to outside influence

Naughty naughty, taking quotes out of context, you _are_ ready for the election. =)

-ajb

Here's the context in case you didn't scroll back

No one has answered me as to how these types of claims help us evolve as a society.

How does it help us evolve now? It doesn't.

And that IS still what we're talking about right?

Now

(Oh the drama!) :corn:

Listen, I said I wasn't gonna argue religion and I'm gonna stick to it now. PM me if you still wanna drag this on.

madajb

10-13-2004, 12:23 AM

Well Alan I never took you for a religious fanatic :rolleyes: .

If you don't paypal me $5 million dollars, God will strike me down!
=)

We don't believe in a common system. From this exchange it's obvious. But we Do agree - I hope - on the Atomic Weight of Hydrogen (The atomic weight of hydrogen is 1.0079 grams per mole). This illustrates my point best.

I think we do, it's the the timing we disagree on.
You think religion's time is over, I think it's still got some time to go.

I've never said religion was all bad. I'm sorry if you got that impression.
Nah, religion like all things, has good points and bad.
But if we just said that in the beginning, it'd be a real boring thread. heh

Listen, I said I wasn't gonna argue religion and I'm gonna stick to it now. PM me if you still wanna drag this on.
C'mon now, we've done politics, religion, what other taboo topic can we pick to offend each other with?
=)

Oh, and in the spirit of full disclosure, I'm technically an Anglican(The Church of England kind, not the bastardized colonial version), but it's been(literally) years since I stepped inside a church.

-ajb

Alan_One

10-13-2004, 02:29 AM

If you don't paypal me $5 million dollars, God will strike me down!
=)

I think we do, it's the the timing we disagree on.
You think religion's time is over, I think it's still got some time to go.

Nah, religion like all things, has good points and bad.
But if we just said that in the beginning, it'd be a real boring thread. heh

C'mon now, we've done politics, religion, what other taboo topic can we pick to offend each other with?
=)

Oh, and in the spirit of full disclosure, I'm technically an Anglican(The Church of England kind, not the bastardized colonial version), but it's been(literally) years since I stepped inside a church.

-ajb

As long as we're "confessing"... gee father it's been 7 years since my last confession..

I was born into catholicism w/ a father that dropped out of a seminary (In his late teens) because of the hypocracy and corruption he wiitnessed and a mother who still prays Novena's. They never really made issue of it with each other but it was interesting having very opposing views so close by. Could I possibly be tainted?

I know claim "Other" if ever I am asked. Sometimes I write in "no thanks".

That doesn't keep me from believing in spirits... Like the spirit of man or the spirit of St. Louis.

GO CHARGERS

;)

madajb

10-13-2004, 02:32 AM

That doesn't keep me from believing in spirits... Like the spirit of man or the spirit of St. Louis.

So long as they're distilled....
-ajb

paultakeda

10-13-2004, 10:42 AM

The difference between religion and science, Alan_One, is not that the atomic weight of hydrogen is a constant while religion holds no constants. Religion is faith, which is the only constant.

Interpretation of both the atomic weight of hydrogen and of a faith, however, remain subjective in the eyes of the beholder. You may say, no, the atomic weight is the atomic weight. This is not true. The atomic weight of hydrogen comes from multiple experiments and theoretical calculations. It is an observed phenomenon that has been quantized for use in currently accepted scientific theory and mathematics. Whether it is a truth is something no true scientist would step forward and attest to. This is why science does not call anything a fact, the closest it gets to it is a Law. Faith is the opposite. Faith derives truth from believing without experimental data.

Both are required to sustain the human imagination. Believing solely in one and not the other is an imbalance that results in turmoil.

Do not misunderstand. I do not see organized religion in the same light as religion and its faith. This is the distinction that many fail to make. Organized religion has a duty to perform, but like any other institution, it is prey to human vices such as greed and power. I doubt any of us would argue otherwise, which brings me to my point (you think Kerry's long-winded):

Alan_One, your contention concerning religion is aimed at the institutions that seek to use its influence for the benefit of individuals seeking power and wealth.
madajb's contention concerns religion as a faith that gives us the balance I descibre above, a "moral compass" that science, an amoral pursuit, cannot fulfill in the human psyche, and therefore, in human society.
Therefore, neither of you are disagreeing with the other, per se.