Burn-E Posted November 13, 2012 Report Share Posted November 13, 2012 I hear he's running for President in 2016. Legalized catnip and a mouse in every house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCviggen Posted November 13, 2012 Report Share Posted November 13, 2012 (edited) I made a prediction based on the polls Yes, you made a prediction whilst believing the polls that you liked, and dismissed the ones you did not like. The ones you did not like were obviously right, in the end. The point stands: you decided to believe what you preferred. You may believe that is a delusional perspective Indeed I do, but I don't actually have a problem with people being delusional, in most cases they are happier for it. It's only when they want to push their delusions onto others (or compromise their offspring's education) that it starts to bother me. So to say that our laws and our American approach to democracy is anything but based on religious beliefs is to not just cut history short but completely obliterate it. You missed the point slightly. Your laws might be based on religious teachings but I'm interested in the question of whether religion is the source of morality or whether they hijacked it. History teaches us it's mostly the latter. And it's a good thing that they did, too, for the most part. You look back to the point where the US was founded. I look back to a time when Christianity did not yet exist. But that's why your countries' "religious inspired" laws are pretty much the same as the laws in every other mildly civilized country in the world. With or without religion you would have ended up with the SAME rules. You can go ahead and claim that in your case religion played a large role, fine, but it's irrelevant. Edited November 13, 2012 by JCviggen 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted November 13, 2012 Report Share Posted November 13, 2012 Yes, you made a prediction whilst believing the polls that you liked, and dismissed the ones you did not like. The ones you did not like were obviously right, in the end. The point stands: you decided to believe what you preferred. Don't we all? You act as if I decided that the polls didn't support my preferred outcome. Instead, I theorized there was more data that needed to be modeled that wasn't included and that the outcome might differ as a result - I wasn't sure which way it would lean with those additional inputs. All I knew was the surveys were lacking. As one who works with quants who eat and breathe this stuff on a daily basis I have a better understanding of how polls are structured than most. The informed man doesn't ask what the polls say, he asks how the surveys were structured and what were their underlying assumptions. Never completely trust the statistics unless you thoroughly understand their sourcing. Polls are a blunt instrument with variances for a reason specifically because their projections are based on a variety of assumptions. You look back to the point where the US was founded. I look back to a time when Christianity did not yet exist. But that's why your countries' "religious inspired" laws are pretty much the same as the laws in every other mildly civilized country in the world. With or without religion you would have ended up with the SAME rules. You can go ahead and claim that in your case religion played a large role, fine, but it's irrelevant. Actually, from the perspective of a Christian, there wasn't a time when man as we know him, didn't have the laws that were laid down by God before him. And that is what I meant when I said God came first and the laws were handed down by him and everything else derived from there. And no, I'm not talking about Moses and the Decalogue but something back at the origins. Your read on history is equally selective based on a particular perspective that is no more proven than mine. I have proof that what I say is true, based on using the scientific method, only it involves an experiment of faith which you would declare moves back into the realm of delusion. Man is created with a conscience, some would call it the light of Christ, that enlightens him to the basics of right and wrong. CS Lewis explored this concept in the Screwtape Letters and Mere Christianity if you're looking for a more philosophical approach to where the conscience comes from. But the conscience is separate from the laws that God gave to guide man. Before you jump, recall, I'm not a right wing Evangelical Christian, I actually believe in evolution - Mormons are far more moderate in this realm. There's a deeper philosophical discussion involved as to how that all fits together (God, evolution, laws and man's creation) but I doubt such exploration would interest you. And it's not what typically gets labeled as intelligent design. But I'll leave you with this question Jan. What is the source of morality or conscience that guides people to recognize certain things as evil and certain things as good? If you're going to claim it's a social construct - which appears to be the direction you're leaning - then be prepared to defend that assertion. Logic does not necessarily support that idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7 VII 7 Posted November 13, 2012 Report Share Posted November 13, 2012 Dave sometimes I think your a pretty smart guy who's up on subjects and matter, then you just blow it with comments about it being BO fault for gas prices and comments like above Have you ever changed your opinion on something major? Political party's, gay rights, women's pay? I did not say it was BO fault for gas prices, I was asking if you guys could educate me on the rise in gas prices when he became President. I have a number friends that are gay (male and female) and I dont approve of their lifestyle but I dont hold that against them as a person. They have never done anything to me that would hurt our friendship. I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. I dont agree with gay marriage and my gay friends know that, but that does not bother them. It is my opinion. As far as gay rights.. anything specific you asking about? Women's pay... anything specific? I believe that a person (black, white, etc, male, female) should get paid for the job they do. I don't support affirmative action either. The comment about more single women over the age of 18 in this country more than married women has a number of values. I am not sure how many single women you know that are around the age of 28 to 34, but statistically they are the big supporters of pro-choice. From what I have seen women that are NOT married seem to think they want to keep their rights because they want to have the flexibility in their "unstable" life. When I say unstable I mean, no husband, no kids. When a woman is not married or single for a long time I have seen a lot of women become bitter to the opposite sex and start to say "nah, I really dont want kids" when earlier in their life they did want kids, they just could not find a mate. I have seen it happen in most if not all of friends from West coast to East coast. They start to get bitter and sounds cheesy "biological clock" is tick tick tick. Changes their mentality and values. Since there are more single women over married women then that is the vote that gives them the flexibility they feel they are losing is even greater. "I dont want someone to take away my right to choose what I can and cant do!" I dont support pro-choice. I have seen people use it as a form of birth control to have an abortion. I believe in abortion in the form of rape, incest or the life of the mother. I have changed that perspective over the last couple years. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted November 13, 2012 Report Share Posted November 13, 2012 I +1'd you Dave because you're straightforward and honest about where you stand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErikS Posted November 13, 2012 Report Share Posted November 13, 2012 I have proof that what I say is true, based on using the scientific method, only it involves an experiment of faith which you would declare moves back into the realm of delusion. Man is created with a conscience, some would call it the light of Christ, that enlightens him to the basics of right and wrong. Humanity (you keep referring to man, there is another half of our sex) has a level of consciousness, but so do other species, just on different levels. Many of which are conscious on levels we do not understand. Christ didn't die to forgive the sins of dolphins, but they know right from wrong, within their society and shown in rare cases ours as well. You can no more prove God exists and religion is the answer for humanity than you can disprove an invisible dragon lives in my garage. A black man as president of the US progress? Sure ... an atheist (or maybe an agnostic) as the president, that would be real progress in my book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted November 13, 2012 Report Share Posted November 13, 2012 Humanity (you keep referring to man, there is another half of our sex) has a level of consciousness, but so do other species, just on different levels. I'm not entirely politically correct nor will I be just to satisfy you. Deal with it. I'm the father of 5 girls, I'm about as feminist as they get when it comes to supporting women's rights and empowerment. But there is a point where it just devolves to silliness. Man as a word to define all members of homo sapiens and/or the human individual as representing the species is extensively used - including that bastion of American language the NY Times and remains a valid usage in the OED. There's a large difference between consciousness and the manner in which humans leverage morality. As for your statement about what Christ died for, I'm not sure anyone fully appreciates the scope of the Atonement. You can no more prove God exists and religion is the answer for humanity than you can disprove an invisible dragon lives in my garage. Nor can you prove He doesn't exist. It's not my job to convince you. And yes, you can with certainty prove a negative so that argument doesn't apply. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted November 13, 2012 Report Share Posted November 13, 2012 But, yes, it is possible to prove God exists. You just have to be wiling to approach the question with an open mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErikS Posted November 13, 2012 Report Share Posted November 13, 2012 But, yes, it is possible to prove God exists. You just have to be wiling to approach the question with an open mind. , same thing with my dragon! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfishing3 Posted November 13, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 13, 2012 I love this line and it seems like a good place to insert I know there isn't a god, otherwise my wife would have a DD cup by now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7 VII 7 Posted November 14, 2012 Report Share Posted November 14, 2012 I love this line and it seems like a good place to insert I know there isn't a god, otherwise my wife would have a DD cup by now lol, that's where you go wrong. Most of the people that I have met that do not believe there is a God say similar things. "If there was a God why didnt he get me that raise". It was not He that didnt get you that raise, you didnt get that raise. Its not me me me me me God do something FOR ME Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted November 14, 2012 Report Share Posted November 14, 2012 Mike, let's talk about prayer since that's what you're alluding to. Seems you and Bruce Almighty need to learn the same lesson. The object of prayer is not to change the will of God, but to secure for ourselves and for others blessings that God is already willing to grant, but that are made conditional on our asking for them. But I think Dave said it best. You can no more prove God exists and religion is the answer for humanity than you can disprove an invisible dragon lives in my garage. , same thing with my dragon! Wait, I didn't realize you named your 854 "the invisible dragon." I mean, it's definitely dragon-like but does it breathe fire? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted November 14, 2012 Report Share Posted November 14, 2012 The moderates are speaking out on how to transform the Republican party - would be interesting to see Huntsman as Secretary of State or as Secretary of Treasury. If that happened it would also be a clear move by Obama to decrease Huntsman's electability in 2016 for the sake of the Democratic party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfishing3 Posted November 14, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 14, 2012 I'd love huntsman as SoS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappo Posted November 14, 2012 Report Share Posted November 14, 2012 I believe he would be a good choice also, however if he wants to run in 2016 he probably won't accept the position if offered. It is hard to spend 2 years campaigning when you have a real job. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts