|
Post by slappy on Sept 5, 2013 1:24:44 GMT -5
Who are you including in that category? Amash, Paul, Cruz, etc. I say they're the ones with balls because they will stand up to the President and their own party leadership, making the case that it is not only fiscally irresponsible, but also morally irresponsible to get involved in Syria. But Libertarian is a terrible label to give if they don't fit in it especially Cruz and Paul doesn't very much like that label.
|
|
purpleoutsider
Mid-Carder
Joined on: Jun 13, 2013 0:35:10 GMT -5
Posts: 142
|
Post by purpleoutsider on Sept 5, 2013 1:47:28 GMT -5
I'd rather people did stuff because THEY decided to do it. Personally, I have never murdered anyone. Why? Is it because I'm afraid of being burned alive for all eternity by a red and scaly man with a bifurcated tail carrying a hayfork? No. The perceived consequences / rewards should never be the only reason you don't do something. Do or don't do something, don't check first if someone 2000 years ago put it in a book first. We should be past not knowing our own morals at this point. Killing someone is wrong. I don't see how it's worse because someone killed someone in the name of religion or better because they didn't. And they do decide to do it. They aren't being forced. They choose to kill in the name of whatever. Thou shalt not kill is in the Bible. Should we dismiss it because it is? You shouldn't need a book to tell you that. And, yes, it is worse when you kill someone in the name of a book. You're doing it because of someone else's thoughts. You're just following what someone else who lived in a different time period, that has no bearing on today, believed. Would you be in favor of women being stoned (as in, throwing rocks at them until they die) in a public place if they're not a virgin when they're married? It's in the bible. Or being stoned for swearing? It's there too. Kids who don't listen to their parents? Stoned. Doing something (anything) on a Sunday? Stoned. A woman BEING RAPED and not yelling angrily loud enough? Do I even have to put what you're supposed to in front of her father's house?
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Sept 5, 2013 2:08:05 GMT -5
Killing someone is wrong. I don't see how it's worse because someone killed someone in the name of religion or better because they didn't. And they do decide to do it. They aren't being forced. They choose to kill in the name of whatever. Thou shalt not kill is in the Bible. Should we dismiss it because it is? You shouldn't need a book to tell you that. And, yes, it is worse when you kill someone in the name of a book. You're doing it because of someone else's thoughts. You're just following what someone else who lived in a different time period, that has no bearing on today, believed. Would you be in favor of women being stoned (as in, throwing rocks at them until they die) in a public place if they're not a virgin when they're married? It's in the bible. Or being stoned for swearing? It's there too. Kids who don't listen to their parents? Stoned. Doing something (anything) on a Sunday? Stoned. A woman BEING RAPED and not yelling angrily loud enough? Do I even have to put what you're supposed to in front of her father's house? There are many self-help books that people use to help themselves but I guess they shouldn't use those books either. I know you'll say no one has killed in the name of self-help books but neither have the vast majority of religious people. But wouldn't you have to believe what is written to take up arms because of it? Sure, they may be someone else's words but are we really going to disregard something if it's not an original thought? If we are going to discard things because they are old then where do we put the cut off point? Is 1600 AD ok? 1700? So we can disregard all of Aristotle then because he's older than the Bible. How does it have no bearing on today? My point about not killing being in the bible was that just because something is in the Bible doesn't mean it should be dismissed. Yeah, you don't like it. That does not mean it is all invalid and that there is no good that comes from it.
|
|
purpleoutsider
Mid-Carder
Joined on: Jun 13, 2013 0:35:10 GMT -5
Posts: 142
|
Post by purpleoutsider on Sept 5, 2013 2:16:06 GMT -5
Since you conveniently ignored a good chunk of what I typed, when I stated why the views in the bible are out of date, I'm done discussing this. Unless you actually believe that, yes, rape victims should be executed, in which case I'm REALLY done discussing this. Bye.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Sept 5, 2013 2:22:15 GMT -5
Since you conveniently ignored a good chunk of what I typed, when I stated why the views in the bible are out of date, I'm done discussing this. Unless you actually believe that, yes, rape victims should be executed, in which case I'm REALLY done discussing this. Bye. So "thou shalt not kill" is out of date? The only parts I ignored were you asking me if I agreed with the Bible on things (which may very well be taken out of context). I never said I agree with the entire Bible. I've never said I'm a Christian or other religion that uses the Bible in its teachings. I'm not religious but I'm also not anti-religion either. But we are so off topic now.
|
|
|
Post by Darkhawk on Sept 5, 2013 2:34:03 GMT -5
I come to this thread and I'm just like what the heck are these guys talking about lol
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Sept 5, 2013 2:45:22 GMT -5
I come to this thread and I'm just like what the heck are these guys talking about lol We need to move back on topic. Hagel says Russia supplied Assad with the chemical weapons. Bet we don't try and punish them for it.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Sept 5, 2013 7:46:01 GMT -5
If you really, truly believe there is no truth in the Bible or any other religion, then you are as close minded as the most hardcore true believer. That's an entirely different thread though. "This offends my views so much that I'm going to blow up that building," said no atheist ever. In order to as truly close minded as the most hardcore believer, you have to murder people who disagree with you, including doctors. People have killed in the name of patriotism, nationalism, water rights, land access, equality, inequality, etc..... over the ages. Religion is a convenient banner for evil people to wave around to encourage the masses to kill other people. If you waved a magic wand and took religion out of the picture, then the evil leaders of the world would simply wave another banner around for people to kill under. Heck, just look at Syria. We're proposing to go over there and kill a bunch of people because we don't like how they're behaving.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Ragnarok on Sept 5, 2013 10:56:55 GMT -5
So what exactly am I so blind about? It's the most rational and logical explanation. If you honestly believe the book of Revelation is true and not the ranting and ravings of a lunatic and that demons are going to start coming up from the ground and that all kinds of other absurd and crazy sh*t is going to happen, then you are not of sound mind and do not have the capabilities of rational and logical thinking. People can't predict things, there is not one thing in the book of Revelation (or the entire Bible for that matter) that is true and there is absolutely no evidence to prove otherwise. I don't know if you think I've been an Atheist my whole life or what, but I've actually been raised a Christian and blindly followed the faith for nearly my whole life. I know what I'm talking about, this isn't some Biblical prophecy, this is reality and people need to get with the program and realize their imaginary friend won't be coming to save them. Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, we're all going to suffer the same, we're all going to be stuck on this planet and the only way out is death. We're all going to be in this mess together. If you really, truly believe there is no truth in the Bible or any other religion, then you are as close minded as the most hardcore true believer. That's an entirely different thread though. Close minded? Because I don't believe in talking snakes, virgin pregnancies, people rising from the dead, a guy walking on water, people living for hundreds of years and other irrational and illogical events and occurrences. You can't be serious. I told you, I was raised a Christian, it's not like I haven't been on both sides of the coin. When I was religious my world was closed to logic and science, now that I'm Atheist my whole world has changed and open to new things I never thought possible. I've studying science, astronomy, evolution and all kinds of interesting things that I thought were lies because my religion caused me to shut all that out. So if your gonna sit there and tell me I'm close minded because I don't believe in the absurdity of the Bible then you seriously need to get it together. Since denouncing religion my mind has never been more open in my life. Give me evidence supporting anything in the Bible, then I'll reconsider my beliefs. ource="/post/5778187/thread" timestamp="1378353301"] "This offends my views so much that I'm going to blow up that building," said no atheist ever. In order to as truly close minded as the most hardcore believer, you have to murder people who disagree with you, including doctors. Maybe they didn't do it because of their atheism but atheists have committed some of the worst atrocities in world history.[/quote] That is complete an utter bullsh*t. You shouldn't need a book to tell you that. And, yes, it is worse when you kill someone in the name of a book. You're doing it because of someone else's thoughts. You're just following what someone else who lived in a different time period, that has no bearing on today, believed. Would you be in favor of women being stoned (as in, throwing rocks at them until they die) in a public place if they're not a virgin when they're married? It's in the bible. Or being stoned for swearing? It's there too. Kids who don't listen to their parents? Stoned. Doing something (anything) on a Sunday? Stoned. A woman BEING RAPED and not yelling angrily loud enough? Do I even have to put what you're supposed to in front of her father's house? There are many self-help books that people use to help themselves but I guess they shouldn't use those books either. I know you'll say no one has killed in the name of self-help books but neither have the vast majority of religious people. But wouldn't you have to believe what is written to take up arms because of it? Sure, they may be someone else's words but are we really going to disregard something if it's not an original thought? If we are going to discard things because they are old then where do we put the cut off point? Is 1600 AD ok? 1700? So we can disregard all of Aristotle then because he's older than the Bible. How does it have no bearing on today? My point about not killing being in the bible was that just because something is in the Bible doesn't mean it should be dismissed. Yeah, you don't like it. That does not mean it is all invalid and that there is no good that comes from it. The Bible condones slavery, rape, homophobia and genocide. One of the stories includes a group of kids getting mauled by a bear sent from god because they made fun of a bald man, then there's Psalms 137:9 which states "Happy is the one who seizes your infants and smashes them against the rocks. And lets not forget the wonderful tale of how god drowns the entire population (including women and children) of earth because he didn't like what they were doing with the free will he supposedly gave them. Let me tell you something Slappy, it's well known that you are gay and if this were Biblical times you be stoned to death just for the simple fact that you love another person of the same sex. There's something seriously wrong with you if you need an ancient, out of date, archaic text to teach you what is right and wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Sept 5, 2013 11:04:05 GMT -5
Amash, Paul, Cruz, etc. I say they're the ones with balls because they will stand up to the President and their own party leadership, making the case that it is not only fiscally irresponsible, but also morally irresponsible to get involved in Syria. But Libertarian is a terrible label to give if they don't fit in it especially Cruz and Paul doesn't very much like that label. Meh', maybe we call them the "Wacko Birds" then, to steal John McCain's phrase.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Sept 5, 2013 11:05:55 GMT -5
BTW, it always cracks me up when people immediately dismiss every "Conspiracy Theory" except religion. All the others have to be proven, without a shadow of a doubt, in order to even be CONSIDERED. Even when many, many of the facts point toward them being true. But when it comes to religion, suddenly it's perfectly okay to believe in talking bushes and trumpets whose songs knock down walls.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Sept 5, 2013 12:04:03 GMT -5
BTW, it always cracks me up when people immediately dismiss every "Conspiracy Theory" except religion. All the others have to be proven, without a shadow of a doubt, in order to even be CONSIDERED. Even when many, many of the facts point toward them being true. But when it comes to religion, suddenly it's perfectly okay to believe in talking bushes and trumpets whose songs knock down walls. Completely and totally different thing. Conspiracy theories require rejecting known facts and accepting things that have not been empirically proven and/or have been empirically proven to be false. Religion requires accepting things that have not been empirically proven.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Sept 5, 2013 12:23:27 GMT -5
BTW, it always cracks me up when people immediately dismiss every "Conspiracy Theory" except religion. All the others have to be proven, without a shadow of a doubt, in order to even be CONSIDERED. Even when many, many of the facts point toward them being true. But when it comes to religion, suddenly it's perfectly okay to believe in talking bushes and trumpets whose songs knock down walls. Completely and totally different thing. Conspiracy theories require rejecting known facts and accepting things that have not been empirically proven and/or have been empirically proven to be false. Religion requires accepting things that have not been empirically proven. You don't think that it's a known fact that trumpets can't knock down walls? Actually, let me phrase this more specifically... What is more likely? a) That there was a guy who parted a sea with his command b) That there were a handful of people, within the US government who knowingly and willingly worked with "terrorists" to perpetrate the attacks of 9/11/01
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Sept 5, 2013 12:33:15 GMT -5
Completely and totally different thing. Conspiracy theories require rejecting known facts and accepting things that have not been empirically proven and/or have been empirically proven to be false. Religion requires accepting things that have not been empirically proven. You don't think that it's a known fact that trumpets can't knock down walls? Actually, let me phrase this more specifically... What is more likely? a) That there was a guy who parted a sea with his command b) That there were a handful of people, within the US government who knowingly and willingly worked with "terrorists" to perpetrate the attacks of 9/11/01 Neither is likely, but there is empirical evidence showing that b) is not true. You can accept a) based purely on faith. In order to accept b) you have to have faith AND you have to deny/ignore all the contrary evidence.
|
|
purpleoutsider
Mid-Carder
Joined on: Jun 13, 2013 0:35:10 GMT -5
Posts: 142
|
Post by purpleoutsider on Sept 5, 2013 12:40:12 GMT -5
BTW, it always cracks me up when people immediately dismiss every "Conspiracy Theory" except religion. All the others have to be proven, without a shadow of a doubt, in order to even be CONSIDERED. Even when many, many of the facts point toward them being true. But when it comes to religion, suddenly it's perfectly okay to believe in talking bushes and trumpets whose songs knock down walls.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Sept 5, 2013 13:01:16 GMT -5
I've not seen a single person on here ask that someone prove that God doesn't exist. I have no idea where you got that from.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Sept 5, 2013 13:19:52 GMT -5
there is empirical evidence showing that b) is not true. Unfortunately for you, there really isn't PROOF that those things didn't happen. There is, however, thousands of years of science that disprove the logistics of many, many stories from the Bible (and other faith-based books). No one can provide one shred of scientific evidence that would lead us to believe it's even possible for a person to build a boat the size of the one Noah supposedly build, for a burning bush to speak, for trumpets to knock down a wall, etc., etc., etc... There IS reason to believe that it's possible that members of the US government were somehow involved in the 9/11 attacks. It's at least POSSIBLE. It is NOT possible for the Bible stories to have happened. Period. It's not possible. You can accept a) based purely on faith. And you can't accept b) based purely on faith? I have FAITH that members of the human race are sick enough to actually perpetrate something like this. To conspire to kill "their own." Explain to me why THAT is more ridiculous than a burning bush speaking to someone.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Sept 5, 2013 13:48:32 GMT -5
Biblical stories ARE possible if you accept the existence of an all-powerful deity. I realize, this is something of a literary crutch at the very least, but IF you accept that premise, then everything else falls in line. Now, it requires faith to accept that premise to be sure, but once you do everything else is possible.
There is NO reason to believe that there is any kind of vast conspiracy behind 9/11. If there is, there is zero evidence at all to back it up. No evidence has ever been uncovered and every single one of the hundreds if not thousands of people who would've been involved have kept their traps shut for more than ten years. Is it really believable that thousands of people could keep their traps shut for over a decade? No guilty consciences? No deathbed confessions? No one having way too many at a bar? No one leaving confessions behind to be found after their deaths? Nothing. You think that is more believable than the existence of a deity? Really?
This is the problem with conspiracies. They make the leap from "it could've happened" to "it did happen" based on nothing at all and in the face of evidence to the contrary. There is no evidence that contradicts a belief in a deity. There is no evidence to prove a deity exists. One chooses to believe or chooses not to believe. With a conspiracy there is evidence to disprove it and no evidence to prove it. One chooses to reject all contrary evidence and accept a theory based on nothing. That's a big difference.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Sept 5, 2013 14:10:52 GMT -5
Biblical stories ARE possible if you accept the existence of an all-powerful deity. I realize, this is something of a literary crutch at the very least, but IF you accept that premise, then everything else falls in line. Now, it requires faith to accept that premise to be sure, but once you do everything else is possible. Every piece of possible scientific evidence would go to prove that these ridiculous Biblical stories did not happen. Bushes do not have lips or vocal chords, therefore they cannot speak. This is pretty simple. Saying that a speaking burning bush is more likely to have happened (or even AS likely) as someone in our government (ANYONE) helping out the terrorists on 9/11 is completely ing absurd. There is NO reason to believe that there is any kind of vast conspiracy behind 9/11. If there is, there is zero evidence at all to back it up. No evidence has ever been uncovered and every single one of the hundreds if not thousands of people who would've been involved have kept their traps shut for more than ten years. Is it really believable that thousands of people could keep their traps shut for over a decade? No guilty consciences? No deathbed confessions? No one having way too many at a bar? No one leaving confessions behind to be found after their deaths? Nothing. You think that is more believable than the existence of a deity? Really? Still 10 trillion bazillion times more likely than a talking, burning bush.
|
|
|
Post by T R W on Sept 5, 2013 14:45:08 GMT -5
Oh Christ shut up
|
|