So that's it for the election.

[Alarti0001]

Can you tell me what Obama's plan is for the next 4 years? Hell fuckin no you can't. Because if its the same plan he had for the first 4 years then its complete and utter fail.

Has Obama helped you since he has been in office?
What has this guy accomplished that YOU feel proud of? I am guessing not jack or shit... But go on man, keep on with the delusions.

Hatelore you are digging your stupid hole. Ever travel? the world doesnt hate us any more. Osama is dead, a war is over, economy is recovering even tho the pres cant do much about it with an obstructionist congress. Lots of mistakes but presidents dont do much but set a tone, everything is always on congress.... they write the paycheck.
Presidents are the face, and he is a pretty good face.

[hatelore bloodlust]

I'm still waiting for you or any libtard to tell me what this guy has done for you or this country in the last four years. And you talk about the 3rd grade, you're the momo who resorted to name calling....dipshit lol.

[hatelore bloodlust]

You seriously call this a recovering economy? Lol. A war ended? Lol, you seriously call Iraq a success? You do realize they are working with Iran now right?

And you are right! Relations with Russia,China,North Korea,Iran,Venezuela,Cuba,Egypt, are just dandy! Lol you guys crack me up. But on election day, someone is going to be crying in there cup of Joe :(

[hatelore bloodlust]

Off to bed I go. I await all of your charts,graphs,pencil drawing and crayon pictures proving obama's huge success upon my return. Just remember... Election day,coffee, and your tears flowing into that hot cup-o-joe :( this guy is toast.

[Lexical]

Off to bed I go. I await all of your charts,graphs,pencil drawing and crayon pictures proving obama's huge success upon my return. Just remember... Election day,coffee, and your tears flowing into that hot cup-o-joe :( this guy is toast.

Told you I don't have the time nor the patience to deal with your asinine statements, but since I am so compassionate, I will do one more graph for you.

https://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/12/7/24/ZQR1SkYZvk2bzjD3SvnI9Q2.jpg

[Reiker000]

just when you thought no one was dumber or knew less about a particular topic than naez, hatelore shows up.

[Phats]

Romney won the election, grats

[hatelore bloodlust]

I am still waiting to hear what this guy has done for the USA. Or the world lol. Moron libtards. Belittle all you want but the common meth head, even with his fried up brain can see that this president is a failure lol. mark my words, your guy will go into the history books as a failed 1 term president who tried to turn us into a socialist nation lol.

[Lexical]

I am still waiting to hear what this guy has done for the USA. Or the world lol. Moron libtards. Belittle all you want but the common meth head, even with his fried up brain can see that this president is a failure lol. mark my words, your guy will go into the history books as a failed 1 term president who tried to turn us into a socialist nation lol.

You should write that book! It can be called "History According to Hatelore: The Ramblings of a Nincompoop"

[hatelore bloodlust]

When you corner a liberal, they resort to name calling and put downs instead of facing the real argument. That argument is this : what has this idiot done in 4 years?

[Lexical]

When you corner a liberal, they resort to name calling and put downs instead of facing the real argument. That argument is this : what has this idiot done in 4 years?

First of all, I am not a liberal.

Second, you started the name calling and I felt I needed to stoop to your level to properly communicate with you based on your belligerent simian behavior.

Third, you should read some or do some personal research then maybe your questions will be answered. Since I pity you, here is another link (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/march_april_2012/features/obamas_top_50_accomplishments035755.php) for you to read. You can read right?;)

[hatelore bloodlust]

I started the name calling? You see? You are delusional... You began your first post directed at me with " can I call you dipshit? Dipshit." that's your words man, your first post is what? An hour ago? And you already forgot? Lol

[hatelore bloodlust]

but again, you dodge my question and try to put me down. Be a man and answer my question.

[kenzar]

I'm still waiting for you or any libtard to tell me what this guy has done for you or this country in the last four years.

Pell grants/other scholarships have completely payed for my bachelors degree, I have put 0$ into my education besides whatever I pay on taxes. I will graduate next summer and I already have job offers of 100k+signing bonuses. I don't know if Obama did that for me, but I've had no trouble finding a job that pays more than enough for a family, let alone a single male w/ no kids.

[hatelore bloodlust]

You sir are a very lucky and successful man. To have a future for you ironed out that is that good in this horrid economy is good. But you earned that, most likely with very hard work. I would wager most aren't that lucky to have no college debt and a job already lines out for them.

[hatelore bloodlust]

But remember, having job offers and actually having the job are two separate things.

[Lexical]

How anyone at this point could even support Obama is beyond me, these people are either delusional, or just plain stupid. Lets look at the derps...

The economy= sucks
Race relations= sucks
foreign relations= sucks
Unemployment at the highest level in the history of our country= sucks
Record number on foodstamps= sucks
Your chances of even getting a job?= sucks
Obamacare, noted now to cost over 2.6 trillion dollars to the taxpayers= sucks
Goverment bailouts to our auto companies= sucks ( I am sorry, but this is a capitalistic society, if you produce a shit product for the last 15 years, you really do deserve to fail)
cow-towing to the muslim's who like to blow things up= sucks
Failing to get a gd thing done in your 4 years on office= sucks

I am not some Jump on the bandwagon Romney fan, But to be honest I would vote for YOU or your pet dog over Obama. His policies have done nothing but weaken us as a nation, his corrupt cabinet and congress have done nothing but weaken us further. You really want to see what else this assclown can do for us in 4 years? Really? Seriously?

Watching the debate, I came away with this:

Mr Romney says " Gas prices were at 1.84 cents when you went into office you piece of shit communist, what say you?"
Obama says " Yeah main, but the economy was bad then!"
Mr Romney "Hey assclown, the economy is bad now and the national average is over 3.50, get a life dude.."
Obama says " Ms Piggy, can we please move on, my horse-face wife wants to go eat more chocolate ice-cream and cheeseburgers then try to tell your kids how they should eat"
Ms Piggy says " okay okay, lets move on."

I mean, this guy pretty much sat there with that moderator and lied to the American people about what he said in the Rose garden... He lied, then got her to back him up with his lie. And the sad truth is, a lot of stupid American people who voted for him before probably believed his lies! Instead of fact checking him.

This election , please vote for my pet turtle Ralph. He will surely do a better job then this bum. Who people were stupid enough to think was a messiah in a business suit.
And if anyone really thinks Obama spanked Romney in this debate, you didn't watch the same debate I watched. Just because obama actually spoke this time around, instead of being a empty chair does not mean he won a debate. It just means he spewed more lies to the American people, since he does NOT have a record he can run on.

I started the name calling? You see? You are delusional... You began your first post directed at me with " can I call you dipshit? Dipshit." that's your words man, your first post is what? An hour ago? And you already forgot? Lol

So how did I start the name calling? You might not have directed it at me, but I was certainly in the blast radius.

[Lexical]

but again, you dodge my question and try to put me down. Be a man and answer my question.

Read the link.

[kenzar]

To be honest, most of the other people who are part of the computer science program at my university have similar situations. In my opinion, the people who are saying they can't find a job out of college are the people who majored in Art, Music, PolSci, Women's Studies, hell even Law. If you want a job immediately, just aim for the hard sciences. Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics (applied or otherwise), Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Civil Engineer, hell, * Engineering and you're golden.

I got where I am now through hardwork, sure, but to think that is all you need is disingenuous.

[hatelore bloodlust]

That was speaking in general, but thaaaaanks for changing my quote up.

[kenzar]

You're right, I've turned down every offer for employment to date, not because they weren't lucrative enough but because I plan to move out of this country as soon as possible. It's served its purpose for me, and I have no qualms jumping ship. I never quite grasped the concept of having pride in one's country, live in a place that works for you, not the other way around, in my opinion.

[Lexical]

That was speaking in general, but thaaaaanks for changing my quote up.

Besides the bolding, I changed the word "facts" to "derps" to better illustrate what was coming. If anything you should thank me :D

[hatelore bloodlust]

That link is from a known liberal newspaper that is in love with Obama, I wouldn't want to begin picking all that apart, I would be up all night. But I will begin with a few. The auto bail out was a complete fail. Have you read about gm's losses lately? Reforming healthcare by cramming a monstrous bill that over 70% of the nation is against is not an accomplishment. 2.6 trillion to the taxpayers for a bill they didn't even want is not an accomplishment. Again, I would be up all night.. The guy is pure fail. Nov elections will prove that and so will the history books.

[Lexical]

Biased or not, it still tells you what the president has accomplished in the past 4 years and that is what you wanted right?

[hatelore bloodlust]

But I am glad you veered away from the name callings and put downs. I guess my simian self will go to bed now so I can keep my job at the simian factory.

[hatelore bloodlust]

Those are not accomplishments :) well most of them are not. But I guess we are all just biased simians in one way or another right?

[kenzar]

Wait, so when presented with facts you end your argument? I thought you were so sure about your position. Don't leave now, feed us liberal baby birds with your pearls of knowledge.

[hatelore bloodlust]

And no that is not what I wanted. I wanted to see the thoughts from your own head on what YOU think he has accomplished.

[hatelore bloodlust]

Biased reporting does not constitute fact. Hah look around you? Look at the unemployment numbers. Look at the current global state? Look at the corruption of our government , and most notably the white house. Look at race relation. Just because you were brainwashed in college doesn't mean you can't look around you and see all of this with your own eyes.

[kenzar]

Brainwashed in college? All I've taken is mathematics, sciences, and programming courses. If any of my professors gave a shit about politics I would be very surprised. Never have any of my professors in any of my courses in my 3.5 years of experience in college mentioned anything about politics. So, I'm confused by what you mean by 'brainwashed in college.'

[hatelore bloodlust]

Like I said. Come election day the people will vote. And I have a very strong feeling you two will be very disappointed with the results.

[Lucky]

First of all, I am not a liberal.

Second, you started the name calling and I felt I needed to stoop to your level to properly communicate with you based on your belligerent simian behavior.

Third, you should read some or do some personal research then maybe your questions will be answered. Since I pity you, here is another link (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/march_april_2012/features/obamas_top_50_accomplishments035755.php) for you to read. You can read right?;)

haha I like how 99% of those are bad

[hatelore bloodlust]

And alarti , be sure to watch the debate coming up, it will be on foreign relations. You know, the world that loves us so much :) in betting it will be a shocker!

[kenzar]

I'm leaving the country in ~10months, if you are looking for someone who has a dog in this fight, you are talking to the wrong person. I won't be anything after election day besides that much closer to leaving.

[Lexical]

Biased reporting does not constitute fact. Hah look around you? Look at the unemployment numbers. Look at the current global state? Look at the corruption of our government , and most notably the white house. Look at race relation. Just because you were brainwashed in college doesn't mean you can't look around you and see all of this with your own eyes.

If you were to back up just one of your many claims with even a biased news source, I would be elated.

Also, that link was a list of the president's accomplishments. Whether or not you think what he accomplished is a good thing is entirely different subject matter, and I await for your response on why they are not if you have one, but please use sources.

[Lexical]

haha I like how 99% of those are bad

explain please.

[hatelore bloodlust]

I don't need to use sources... The average mental midget can look around and see the fruits of his labor. They were clearly illustrated in my very first post. If you need a source I would direct you to that.

[hatelore bloodlust]

Illustrated in text that is :)

[kenzar]

I don't need to use sources

Lol, I'm going to try this one on my next Chem-Lab report. See how well that goes over.

[Lexical]

How anyone at this point could even support Obama is beyond me, these people are either delusional, or just plain stupid. Lets look at the facts...

The economy= sucks
Race relations= sucks
foreign relations= sucks
Unemployment at the highest level in the history of our country= sucks
Record number on foodstamps= sucks
Your chances of even getting a job?= sucks
Obamacare, noted now to cost over 2.6 trillion dollars to the taxpayers= sucks
Goverment bailouts to our auto companies= sucks ( I am sorry, but this is a capitalistic society, if you produce a shit product for the last 15 years, you really do deserve to fail)
cow-towing to the muslim's who like to blow things up= sucks
Failing to get a gd thing done in your 4 years on office= sucks

I am not some Jump on the bandwagon Romney fan, But to be honest I would vote for YOU or your pet dog over Obama. His policies have done nothing but weaken us as a nation, his corrupt cabinet and congress have done nothing but weaken us further. You really want to see what else this assclown can do for us in 4 years? Really? Seriously?

Watching the debate, I came away with this:

Mr Romney says " Gas prices were at 1.84 cents when you went into office you piece of shit communist, what say you?"
Obama says " Yeah main, but the economy was bad then!"
Mr Romney "Hey assclown, the economy is bad now and the national average is over 3.50, get a life dude.."
Obama says " Ms Piggy, can we please move on, my horse-face wife wants to go eat more chocolate ice-cream and cheeseburgers then try to tell your kids how they should eat"
Ms Piggy says " okay okay, lets move on."

I mean, this guy pretty much sat there with that moderator and lied to the American people about what he said in the Rose garden... He lied, then got her to back him up with his lie. And the sad truth is, a lot of stupid American people who voted for him before probably believed his lies! Instead of fact checking him.

This election , please vote for my pet turtle Ralph. He will surely do a better job then this bum. Who people were stupid enough to think was a messiah in a business suit.
And if anyone really thinks Obama spanked Romney in this debate, you didn't watch the same debate I watched. Just because obama actually spoke this time around, instead of being a empty chair does not mean he won a debate. It just means he spewed more lies to the American people, since he does NOT have a record he can run on.

The only logical conclusion I can draw from this is that Hatelore has the IQ of a sponge.

[hatelore bloodlust]

Man just look around you lol. Unemployment, if you take the spin away is around 13%. Housing prices have dropped to such a level that thousands upon thousands are upside down on there mortgages. Inflation is at a massive high. Race relations are set back to the 1960's man do I really need to go on? Open your eyes man.

[hatelore bloodlust]

There you go again, dodging the argument and resorting to putting me down. Are you even an adult?

[hatelore bloodlust]

and I don't mean that as a put down. That is an actual direct question.

[hatelore bloodlust]

If you were to back up just one of your many claims with even a biased news source, I would be elated.

Also, that link was a list of the president's accomplishments. Whether or not you think what he accomplished is a good thing is entirely different subject matter, and I await for your response on why they are not if you have one, but please use sources.


I don't need to back it up. You don't read about current events? Do you live under a rock. It has all been reported on over and over for the last four years...

[Lucky]

explain please.

The entire list is a charade, but these stood out.

1. Passed Health Care Reform:
Written by the insurance companies, for the insurance companies.

2. Passed the Stimulus
Don't get me started.

3. Passed Wall Street Reform

wall street reform is bad cuz it didnt do jack shit to fix the problem which was when bush/clinton got rid of glass steagall act and it made a 'consumer protection bureau' under the privately banker owned federal reserve giving them even greater control of the economy

4. Ended the War in Iraq:
besides the 50,000 Blackwater/Xe troops on the gov't payroll still guarding cheneys oil pipelines

6. Eliminated Osama bin laden:
Died in 1998.

12. Reversed Bush Torture Policies:
Lol, no he fucking did not.

13. Improved America’s Image Abroad:
see above

21. Tightened Sanctions on Iran
oh yea that country not building a nuke! youd think the american ppl would have learned that card theyre playing after being suckered into Iraq

25. Protected Two Liberal Seats on the U.S. Supreme Court:
The same supreme court that ruled just 5-4 in 2009 about whether the 2nd amendment gives us a PERSONAL right....

30. Gave the FDA Power to Regulate Tobacco
Thought we already had the bloated ass ATF for that?

35. Let Space Shuttle Die and Killed Planned Moon Mission
Gutting the space program is now an accomplishment?

41. Avoided Scandal: As of November 2011, served longer than any president in decades without a scandal, as measured by the appearance of the word “scandal” (or lack thereof) on the front page of the Washington Post.


46. Recognized the Dangers of Carbon Dioxide: In 2009, EPA declared carbon dioxide a pollutant, allowing the agency to regulate its production.

how the fuck is something plants need to survive a pollutant, aka allowing the EPA to regulate your breathing

[Lexical]

The entire list is a charade, but these stood out.

1. Passed Health Care Reform:
Written by the insurance companies, for the insurance companies.

2. Passed the Stimulus
Don't get me started.

3. Passed Wall Street Reform

wall street reform is bad cuz it didnt do jack shit to fix the problem which was when bush/clinton got rid of glass steagall act and it made a 'consumer protection bureau' under the privately banker owned federal reserve giving them even greater control of the economy

4. Ended the War in Iraq:
besides the 50,000 Blackwater/Xe troops on the gov't payroll still guarding cheneys oil pipelines

6. Eliminated Osama bin laden:
Died in 1998.

12. Reversed Bush Torture Policies:
Lol, no he fucking did not.

13. Improved America’s Image Abroad:
see above

21. Tightened Sanctions on Iran
oh yea that country not building a nuke! youd think the american ppl would have learned that card theyre playing after being suckered into Iraq

25. Protected Two Liberal Seats on the U.S. Supreme Court:
The same supreme court that ruled just 5-4 in 2009 about whether the 2nd amendment gives us a PERSONAL right....

30. Gave the FDA Power to Regulate Tobacco
Thought we already had the bloated ass ATF for that?

35. Let Space Shuttle Die and Killed Planned Moon Mission
Gutting the space program is now an accomplishment?

41. Avoided Scandal: As of November 2011, served longer than any president in decades without a scandal, as measured by the appearance of the word “scandal” (or lack thereof) on the front page of the Washington Post.


46. Recognized the Dangers of Carbon Dioxide: In 2009, EPA declared carbon dioxide a pollutant, allowing the agency to regulate its production.

how the fuck is something plants need to survive a pollutant, aka allowing the EPA to regulate your breathing

Can I get some sauce with these?

[kenzar]

Lol, you really don't know why CO2 is a pollutant? Plants need it to survive, sure, but plants have been surviving for millions of years on the natural levels CO2 found in the atmosphere. Poison is in the dosage.

[hatelore bloodlust]

The only logical conclusion I can draw from this is that Hatelore has the IQ of a sponge.

also you are in no position to question my intelligence's. i am a young doctor.

[kenzar]

ok Ill bite. What's your discipline?

[Lucky]

Lol, you really don't know why CO2 is a pollutant? Plants need it to survive, sure, but plants have been surviving for millions of years on the natural levels CO2 found in the atmosphere. Poison is in the dosage.

water is a pollutant cuz if theres too much animals will drown

[hatelore bloodlust]

That was very poor trolling... Hah please don't bite. I was under the assumption that you were educated and intelligent... Don't mess that up now.

[kenzar]

The difference being, we arent producing mass amounts of H2O and just letting it off into the atmosphere unregulated. False comparison, try again.

[kenzar]

I'm aware of what it was, I was genuinely interested in seeing how far you would take it.

[hatelore bloodlust]

Back to the topic at hand. What do you two young doctors feel Obama Osama has done to help the good ol' USA? as I'm asking this question I am picturing you two as mimes.

[Lucky]

The difference being, we arent producing mass amounts of H2O and just letting it off into the atmosphere unregulated. False comparison, try again.

There is literally no difference. Carbon dioxide (CO2) 394.45 ppmv (0.039445%)

[Lucky]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth

[hatelore bloodlust]

Okay off to bed I go. It was fun. All hail Osama Obama and his side kick crazy ol Biden.

[kenzar]

The concentration of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere has reached 395 ppm by volume as of June 2012 and rose by 2.0 ppm/yr during 2000–2009. This current concentration is substantially higher than the 280 ppm concentration present in pre-industrial times, with the increase largely attributed to anthropogenic sources.

How is it the same?

[Lucky]

I'm saying there isnt an excess, not enough to cause any significant global warming (hence the climategate scandal).

Co2 concentration is less than 004/100th of a percent. Compared to Venus which is 96% co2, closer to the sun with a temperature of 867°F. Over 2400 times the co2 but only 8x the temperature.

[Lucky]

Here's the difference:

8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8


2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400

[Reiker000]

Here's the difference:

8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8


2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
ban 4 spam

[Alawen]

ITT: A couple of subsidized red staters hate a black guy in the White House so much that they're willing to pay higher taxes so a guy wearing magic underwear can cut taxes even further on the obscenely rich. Who need highways, education, or a fire department anyway?

[hatelore bloodlust]

It isn't about hating a black guy in the white house Alawen... It sort of has something to do with the fact that everything this guy in the white house touches turns to shit...lol

[Lexical]

It isn't about hating a black guy in the white house Alawen... It sort of has something to do with the fact that everything this guy in the white house touches turns to shit...lol

How about how he alone ended WW2? Or how about how he brought peace to the middle east? Or how about how he made for the first time ever in the history of America the unemployment rate a negative number? yes that is right, we now have 102% employment. Or how about how after he put more money into schools and less into big corporations, he helped a group of middle schoolers discover the Higgs Boson? No, I don't need sources. I can say whatever I want and not be hampered by these "fact" things you keep talking about.

[hatelore bloodlust]

Haha I love your dog! And holy 2400 batman.

[hatelore bloodlust]

Haha I love your dog! And holy 2400 batman.

Hah. Lame autocorrecting windows phone... I meant I love your sig!!

[Orruar]

ITT: A couple of subsidized red staters hate a black guy in the White House so much that they're willing to pay higher taxes so a guy wearing magic underwear can cut taxes even further on the obscenely rich. Who need highways, education, or a fire department anyway?

Why did you pick those three examples? The federal government doesn't pay for fire departments, and only pays a small fraction of the total spent on highways and education. In fact, federal spending on education is a relatively recent development (1979), strangely coinciding with the begin of the decline of education in America.

You should have said "Who needs hundreds of military bases abroad in places such as Germany, social security, and medicare anyway?"

These are the things that would need to be cut to have any chance of balancing the budget.

Also, the tax rate doesn't really matter much. It's the spending that matters. If they increase spending while keeping taxes the same, the extra deficit must be financed either by borrowing or money printing. Both of these have a much more damaging impact to the lower classes than direct taxation. That said, I don't think Romney has mentioned a single dollar of spending he'd cut outside of PBS. It's a toss up as to who would spend more money. This is our "choice" for president.

We do actually have a guy on the ballot in all 50 states who offers a 42% reduction in government spending immediately, but he's kept from the debates because he'd expose this system for what it is: Two suits with the same opinions squabbling over their minor differences, while agreeing upon 95% of what is important. The last time they let a 3rd person into the debates (Perot), he did exactly that and nearly destroyed the 2 party system. They learned their lesson.

[Raavak]

Stop making so much God damned sense.

[Alarti0001]

I am still waiting to hear what this guy has done for the USA. Or the world lol. Moron libtards. Belittle all you want but the common meth head, even with his fried up brain can see that this president is a failure lol. mark my words, your guy will go into the history books as a failed 1 term president who tried to turn us into a socialist nation lol.

Whats a libtard? A libertarian retard? SO confuzzled

Lets see here, healthcare, Gay rights in the military, the equal pay for women thing, better wall street regulation(though dodd, frank still needs a lot of work), hmm nuclear proliferation
Who said Iraq was a success?(obama didnt send us to Iraq) as a former military i can tell you that you dont fight a terrorist organization with the military. Its like swatting a fly with a LAW
That credit card clean up, increased Pell grants, limited lobbyists access to the white house
Oh ya he actually supports science!

I suppose i could list 500 things here but I have to get ready to work.

[Alarti0001]

Also, the tax rate doesn't really matter much. It's the spending that matters.


Huh? U sure?

[Alarti0001]

The only logical conclusion I can draw from this is that Hatelore has the IQ of a sponge.

Thats pushing it, I was thinking Amoeba

[hatelore bloodlust]

Whats a libtard? A libertarian retard? SO confuzzled

Lets see here, healthcare, Gay rights in the military, the equal pay for women thing, better wall street regulation(though dodd, frank still needs a lot of work), hmm nuclear proliferation
Who said Iraq was a success?(obama didnt send us to Iraq) as a former military i can tell you that you dont fight a terrorist organization with the military. Its like swatting a fly with a LAW
That credit card clean up, increased Pell grants, limited lobbyists access to the white house
Oh ya he actually supports science!

I suppose i could list 500 things here but I have to get ready to work.

hmm I guess you haven't read(can you read?) Russia will not be re-signing that treaty.

[hatelore bloodlust]

But that's right! The world loves us right alarti? Lol... And equal pay for woman my ass lol. You need some edumication haha.

[Supreme]

Lets reelect someone that promises to do in the next four years what he has failed to do in the last four years.

Of course the obvious solution is to tax the achievers and redistribute to the underachievers. The evil rich must be punished for their success in life, you deserve EQUAL share..even if you did not really work for it.

At this rate everything i have accomplished is being systematically taken away and given to someone else weather they deserve it or not.

And guess what? There is an endless line of idiots to vote for this. Wait until you are in your mid-40s. Working as a small business owner making $150k/year trying to raise 3 kids and provide them with a decent life. You came from the ghetto and worked hard through the military, college and life to achieve...now have someone come and decidely take it away because "you didnt build it".

Democrats have been fucking up this country since before the Civil War. You idiots do realize it was DEMOCRATS that was against the abolishment of slavery through the diguise of "States Rights". You also realize it was DEMOCRATS that was against "Civil Rights". DEMOCRATS that created the "Community Reinvestment Act". The list goes on and on.

Only a matter of time before we start seeing Military troops being forcibly quartered in our homes.

[Supreme]

But that's right! The world loves us right alarti? Lol... And equal pay for woman my ass lol. You need some edumication haha.

Hillary Clinton makes more than 97% of the male population.

My wife actually makes more than me lol.

[hatelore bloodlust]

Lets reelect someone that promises to do in the next four years what he has failed to do in the last four years.

Of course the obvious solution is to tax the achievers and redistribute to the underachievers. The evil rich must be punished for their success in life, you deserve EQUAL share..even if you did not really work for it.

At this rate everything i have accomplished is being systematically taken away and given to someone else weather they deserve it or not.

And guess what? There is an endless line of idiots to vote for this. Wait until you are in your mid-40s. Working as a small business owner making $150k/year trying to raise 3 kids and provide them with a decent life. You came from the ghetto and worked hard through the military, college and life to achieve...now have someone come and decidely take it away because "you didnt build it".

Wtd dude. Don't come in here and make sense! Doing that will only get you insulted by people like alarti and the last two young doctors that started crying after reading my thread. The truth hurts! Stop hurting people you simian from a red state! Lol. Good post dude.

Democrats have been fucking up this country since before the Civil War. You idiots do realize it was DEMOCRATS that was against the abolishment of slavery through the diguise of "States Rights". You also realize it was DEMOCRATS that was against "Civil Rights". DEMOCRATS that created the "Community Reinvestment Act". The list goes on and on.

Only a matter of time before we start seeing Military troops being forcibly quartered in our homes.

[hatelore bloodlust]

Well that got borked...

[Smedy]

Hillary Clinton makes more than 97% of the male population.

My wife actually makes more than me lol.

Clearly you're into quantum computing and not selling oranges on the sidewalk

You americans argue over 2 choices which doesn't matter anyway, you think you have freedom but you're being controlled, naez told me this

Freedom in Sweedom pals, piratebay says hello, where everything is free

[Alarti0001]

hmm I guess you haven't read(can you read?) Russia will not be re-signing that treaty.

You seem mad. Is it because you can't produce any evidence to support your claims?

So you say the world doesn't love us and you cite 1 country? Idiot. Have you ever even left the US?

I have been to 57 countries and have traveled during both the Bush and Obama years.
Btw, I looked around me like you said, and everything looks like its improving to me.

@supreme I guess you didn't know about the party switch during the late 40's early 50's. The democrats supported heavily the civil rights movements and the 2 parties switched identities the democrats took votes from population centers, with the repubs taking the south and rural areas.

[Orruar]

Huh? U sure?

Yes. Understand that every dollar the government spends, it must get from somewhere. Understand the side effects of government borrowing and money printing, and you will understand why the tax rate doesn't really matter that much. All three forms of obtaining funds are harmful, and direct taxation is probably the least damaging. The most popular form (money printing) is by far the most damaging to the lower classes. It is popular because it is a hidden tax, one that most people don't realize is being thrust upon them.

[Orruar]

I thought Obama solved the equal pay for women issue? Wasn't that the first bill he signed into law? Why is this an issue again this election cycle? Why are women still being paid 70 cents on the dollar compared to their male counterparts? Is it possible that even if this indicates unfair pay, the government is not the vehicle best suited to solve the problem? Or do they just need to pass "just one more law" to take care of the issue? Is it possible that this is just an issue they'll trot out every election cycle to try and gain votes? And if it is a useful issue to gain votes, wouldn't the dems have every incentive to ensure the gender disparity continues?

[Orruar]

limited lobbyists access to the white house

I hadn't heard much about this, but was skeptical. The second Google link is:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/oh-no-we-cant-let-romney-win-hell-let-lobbyists-in-the-white-house/article/2510879#.UIFeu8V3gfg

As a general rule of thumb: If a politician tells you he's doing something, verify it. If a pundit tells you his favorite politician is doing something, verify it twice.

[Lron]

Anyone who votes for Obama after he assassinated a US citizen, Signed the NDAA, Kept Guantanamo open, raided state run marijuana dispensaries heavier than Bush, started new wars without congressional authority, bailed out wall street CEOs who made billions in bonuses the same year they said they needed instant capital infusion from all of us or they were going to go under.... is beyond any kind of persuasion and is a brain dead sheep who is nothing more than a water boy for the democratic party.

Anyone who votes for Romney after he basically designed Obamacare while governor of Mass, claimed on national TV that his state healthcare plan should be implemented on the federal level, was pro choice before he was pro life, signed gun control laws before he was a member of the NRA, was pro bailout, pro stimulus before he was anti bailout/stimulus....is a water boy for the Republican party and is a sheep and immediately surrenders any credibility he has on any topic involving american politics along with the Obama Zombies.

Your choice was clear, Ron Paul was the only one offering substantive change, a real plan for economic recovery and eliminating the national debt/deficit.

You knuckle dragging Republicans and Democrats dont care about actual policy because your IQs are way too low to actually understand the issues so you vote for a team that you think represents you....read this over and over until it sinks in....>>>the republicans and democrats dont represent you <<<

Both Romney and Obama represent big business interest, the military industrial complex and banking elites....that is who they are beholden to.

Time to grow up and do your own research instead of being spoon fed disinformation by the left and right media outlets....remember, they are controlled by the interests i mentioned above.

[hatelore bloodlust]

You seem mad. Is it because you can't produce any evidence to support your claims?

So you say the world doesn't love us and you cite 1 country? Idiot. Have you ever even left the US?

I have been to 57 countries and have traveled during both the Bush and Obama years.
Btw, I looked around me like you said, and everything looks like its improving to me.

@supreme I guess you didn't know about the party switch during the late 40's early 50's. The democrats supported heavily the civil rights movements and the 2 parties switched identities the democrats took votes from population centers, with the repubs taking the south and rural areas.
Umm actually a listed many countries that we are not in good relations with. But here we go again with the name calling. Here are some from the list I wrote the last time you decided to pass gas on these forums: Russia,China,Iran,North Korea,Venizuela,Pakistan,Egypt, and the Country that we are currently fighting a war in. But go on man, keep passing gas on these forums. I can smell your stinky ass all the way over in my red state, bitch. See what I did there? I resorted to name calling like you.

[hatelore bloodlust]

Anyone who votes for Obama after he assassinated a US citizen, Signed the NDAA, Kept Guantanamo open, raided state run marijuana dispensaries heavier than Bush, started new wars without congressional authority, bailed out wall street CEOs who made billions in bonuses the same year they said they needed instant capital infusion from all of us or they were going to go under.... is beyond any kind of persuasion and is a brain dead sheep who is nothing more than a water boy for the democratic party.

Anyone who votes for Romney after he basically designed Obamacare while governor of Mass, claimed on national TV that his state healthcare plan should be implemented on the federal level, was pro choice before he was pro life, signed gun control laws before he was a member of the NRA, was pro bailout, pro stimulus before he was anti bailout/stimulus....is a water boy for the Republican party and is a sheep and immediately surrenders any credibility he has on any topic involving american politics along with the Obama Zombies.

Your choice was clear, Ron Paul was the only one offering substantive change, a real plan for economic recovery and eliminating the national debt/deficit.

You knuckle dragging Republicans and Democrats dont care about actual policy because your IQs are way too low to actually understand the issues so you vote for a team that you think represents you....read this over and over until it sinks in....>>>the republicans and democrats dont represent you <<<

Both Romney and Obama represent big business interest, the military industrial complex and banking elites....that is who they are beholden to.

Time to grow up and do your own research instead of being spoon fed disinformation by the left and right media outlets....remember, they are controlled by the interests i mentioned above.

it isn't so much that I disagree with you, but what option do we have now? We are stuck with the two candidates running. If we vote for the third, you will see that candidate get a small percentage of votes and another 4 years of Obama.

[hatelore bloodlust]

And I could go get the news articles alarti for the last 4 years and post them here. But all that would accomplish is more bickering and wasted forum space. You are hell bent on your messiah named Obama.

[Ravager]

Taxes and the economy won't improve until the Federal Reserve is taken down.
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/19-reasons-why-the-federal-reserve-is-at-the-heart-of-our-economic-problems
It was in the constitution not to have federal taxes, but taxes were added to the constitution to pay the Federal Reserve interest on the money it prints. All American money is created as debt which is pretty disheartening.

[hatelore bloodlust]

And furthermore , I live in city with the best economy in the nation. And it isn't looking to swell here dude. I see a ton more homeless on the street, and I know many who have given up nearly after seeking a job for the last 6 months. You need to hit the pipe some more alarti and go back to la la land.

[Lexical]

Anyone who votes for Obama after he assassinated a US citizen, Signed the NDAA, Kept Guantanamo open, raided state run marijuana dispensaries heavier than Bush, started new wars without congressional authority, bailed out wall street CEOs who made billions in bonuses the same year they said they needed instant capital infusion from all of us or they were going to go under.... is beyond any kind of persuasion and is a brain dead sheep who is nothing more than a water boy for the democratic party.

Anyone who votes for Romney after he basically designed Obamacare while governor of Mass, claimed on national TV that his state healthcare plan should be implemented on the federal level, was pro choice before he was pro life, signed gun control laws before he was a member of the NRA, was pro bailout, pro stimulus before he was anti bailout/stimulus....is a water boy for the Republican party and is a sheep and immediately surrenders any credibility he has on any topic involving american politics along with the Obama Zombies.

Your choice was clear, Ron Paul was the only one offering substantive change, a real plan for economic recovery and eliminating the national debt/deficit.

You knuckle dragging Republicans and Democrats dont care about actual policy because your IQs are way too low to actually understand the issues so you vote for a team that you think represents you....read this over and over until it sinks in....>>>the republicans and democrats dont represent you <<<

Both Romney and Obama represent big business interest, the military industrial complex and banking elites....that is who they are beholden to.

Time to grow up and do your own research instead of being spoon fed disinformation by the left and right media outlets....remember, they are controlled by the interests i mentioned above.

Ron Paul!? Oh man! I love Ron Paul supporters because they have no idea what the hell they are talking about. Here, I will throw you a softball question and you can tell me how much this lunatic's policies actually work. Please explain to me how in the world does reverting back to the gold standard do anything but damage our economy? But I bet you didn't even know that is what Ron Paul supports, did you?

You are too busy smelling your own farts to actually check what the fuck this gobshite is about. Yes, I agree Ron Pual had SOME good ideas, but you have to understand his bad ideas were so idiotic and crazy that you had to ignore him. I know that this may be hard for you but destroying the government to cut government spending doesn't solve any problems and only leads to anarchy. Go back to the articles of confederation and tell me how long the libertarian party's ideals lasted before crumbling? What was it? 2 months? Go read a book and stop pretending like you know shit.

I have yet to have someone refute any of my claims with supported facts. Show me with math how using a finite resource will support constant economic growth. Show me with math how completely removing all of our fiscal protections will not cause rampant monopolies and inevitably destroy every asset of our economy. In case you didn't know it, but the biggest problem our country is the fact that mega corporations aren't paying their taxes. The only candidate on the ballet who has actually shown any true interest in taxing these entities is Obama. You make the top 100 pay their full 30% in taxes and you will find the budget is much more balanced.

[Orruar]

it isn't so much that I disagree with you, but what option do we have now? We are stuck with the two candidates running. If we vote for the third, you will see that candidate get a small percentage of votes and another 4 years of Obama.

That's like voting to chop off your right leg instead of your left. There is essentially no difference, and you're only validating the 2 party monopoly. If Gary Johnson could pull in 10-15% without being in the debates, it will expose their bullshit system for what it is. Yes the next 4 years will suck, but that's true no matter what. The hope at this point is that a solid 3rd party showing will force them to include that 3rd party in the debates, and in the national dialogue, in the future.

[hatelore bloodlust]

That's like voting to chop off your right leg instead of your left. There is essentially no difference, and you're only validating the 2 party monopoly. If Gary Johnson could pull in 10-15% without being in the debates, it will expose their bullshit system for what it is. Yes the next 4 years will suck, but that's true no matter what. The hope at this point is that a solid 3rd party showing will force them to include that 3rd party in the debates, and in the national dialogue, in the future.

Dude your argument holds no water... In 4 more years with Obama, it wouldn't suck, we would probably cease to exist as a nation. You guys argue this point every election. But the bottom line is that he will not pull 15 or 20% percent of the vote. I respect your view and will not resort to name calling like alarti and the two young doctors I was arguing with last night. But it just isn't going to happen man.

[hatelore bloodlust]

Yes. Understand that every dollar the government spends, it must get from somewhere. Understand the side effects of government borrowing and money printing, and you will understand why the tax rate doesn't really matter that much. All three forms of obtaining funds are harmful, and direct taxation is probably the least damaging. The most popular form (money printing) is by far the most damaging to the lower classes. It is popular because it is a hidden tax, one that most people don't realize is being thrust upon them.

This guy knows what he is talking about. At this point bernake should be tared and feathered.

[Humerox]

Ron Paul!? Oh man! I love Ron Paul supporters because they have no idea what the hell they are talking about. Here, I will throw you a softball question and you can tell me how much this lunatic's policies actually work. Please explain to me how in the world does reverting back to the gold standard do anything but damage our economy? But I bet you didn't even know that is what Ron Paul supports, did you?

Seems like Ron Paul isn't alone...

Republicans Eye Return to Gold Standard (http://www.cnbc.com/id/48770752/Republicans_Eye_Return_to_Gold_Standard)

[hatelore bloodlust]

Seems like Ron Paul isn't alone...

Republicans Eye Return to Gold Standard (http://www.cnbc.com/id/48770752/Republicans_Eye_Return_to_Gold_Standard)
That would be one of several steps needed to put us back in the right
direction.

[Alarti0001]

That would be one of several steps needed to put us back in the right
direction.

Do explain how?

[Orruar]

Ron Paul!? Oh man! I love Ron Paul supporters because they have no idea what the hell they are talking about. Here, I will throw you a softball question and you can tell me how much this lunatic's policies actually work. Please explain to me how in the world does reverting back to the gold standard do anything but damage our economy? But I bet you didn't even know that is what Ron Paul supports, did you?

I have yet to have someone refute any of my claims with supported facts. Show me with math how using a finite resource will support constant economic growth. Show me with math how completely removing all of our fiscal protections will not cause rampant monopolies and inevitably destroy every asset of our economy. In case you didn't know it, but the biggest problem our country is the fact that mega corporations aren't paying their taxes. The only candidate on the ballet who has actually shown any true interest in taxing these entities is Obama. You make the top 100 pay their full 30% in taxes and you will find the budget is much more balanced.

Yes, because paper money has had a much better history of success... No paper currency has survived longer than about 40 years. The US dollar has just crossed that threshold. Unlikely it will last another 40. Since you're a historical expert about the period of the articles of confederation, certainly you must know about the Continental, our nation's first experiment with paper money. The experience with that paper money is why the founders required money be backed by gold or silver, so that we wouldn't make such a horrible mistake again. And is it just a coincidence that poverty had decreased steadily during the period of the gold standard, and has flattened out and even increased slightly since we went off it?

You do not need the supply of money to grow at the same rate as the economy... Do you just read talking points from Paul Krugman? This argument has been refuted into irrelevance. If the economy grows faster than the supply of money, goods will become cheaper. You may need smaller denominations of currency, but you don't need a larger supply of money.

Finally, let's investigate your claim that if the top 100 companies paid 30% in corporate income taxes, we'd have a balanced budget. The market cap of the top 100 companies totals to $13.3T. We can assume the P/E is between 10 and 15, so let's put it at 13.3 to make it easy. That means these companies have 1 trillion dollars in earnings. Let's assume they currently pay 0 in taxes, which is a bit unlikely, but I'll give it to you. Raising the tax rate to 30% would increase tax revenues by $300B. This is only a small chunk of the $1.1T deficit. The actual tax rate of the largest corporations is about 18.5% right now (see source below), so your increase to 30% would lead to a $115B increase in federal revenue, which is 10% of the deficit. Way to solve the budget deficit buddy.

Info on corporate tax rates:
http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/03/news/economy/corporate_taxes/index.htm

[hatelore bloodlust]

Hey Lexicali, young doctor. Can you explain to all the overly bright individuals on a gaming forum how putting our money back on the gold standard and backing are dollars with real access could be a detriment to our economy. A lot of the financial problems we have today are because another moron president(like Obama) took us off the gold standard. But just like last night, you will most likely resort to name calling instead of answering my simple question.

[Alarti0001]

Umm actually a listed many countries that we are not in good relations with. But here we go again with the name calling. Here are some from the list I wrote the last time you decided to pass gas on these forums: Russia,China,Iran,North Korea,Venizuela,Pakistan,Egypt, and the Country that we are currently fighting a war in. But go on man, keep passing gas on these forums. I can smell your stinky ass all the way over in my red state, bitch. See what I did there? I resorted to name calling like you.

Russia hates us? China hates us? Iran hates us?


Oh you just mean Leaders of their gov't ?

The populace is what matters.

Do you have any sense?

[hatelore bloodlust]

Do explain how?
Lol seems i don't need to. The guy above me explained it pretty damn well in my opinion. Printing more and more paper does exactly that, it makes more paper. And the dollar sees a continual drop in overall worth. Look at gold prices, o traveled one.

[Lucky]

if we double the co2 in the atmosphere the temperature would raise by 0.36F

[hatelore bloodlust]

Russia hates us? China hates us? Iran hates us?


Oh you just mean Leaders of their gov't ?

The populace is what matters.

Do you have any sense?

Do you have any sense? Who controls and sheepherds that populace in those country, man you really are slow.

[hatelore bloodlust]

You are really going to sit here on these forums alarti and state that those populaces of people are in love with America. Man, I congrat you for the services you provided to our country. But you seriously do live in a la la land that you created out of thin air.

[Hitchens]

Gold's main importance as a currency was the difficulty in counterfeiting it.

Gold's main purpose now is as a manufacturing material.

This fascination with gold is nothing more than economic crankery. Hayek didn't take it seriously and neither did Friedman.

[hatelore bloodlust]

But keep it up Alarti, this is fun! Are you enjoying your Friday? I am :) but honestly, even with your delusions of grandeur, I do appreciate that you went and fought for our country.

[Alarti0001]

Yes, because paper money has had a much better history of success... No paper currency has survived longer than about 40 years. The US dollar has just crossed that threshold. Unlikely it will last another 40. Since you're a historical expert about the period of the articles of confederation, certainly you must know about the Continental, our nation's first experiment with paper money. The experience with that paper money is why the founders required money be backed by gold or silver, so that we wouldn't make such a horrible mistake again. And is it just a coincidence that poverty had decreased steadily during the period of the gold standard, and has flattened out and even increased slightly since we went off it?

You do not need the supply of money to grow at the same rate as the economy... Do you just read talking points from Paul Krugman? This argument has been refuted into irrelevance. If the economy grows faster than the supply of money, goods will become cheaper. You may need smaller denominations of currency, but you don't need a larger supply of money.

Finally, let's investigate your claim that if the top 100 companies paid 30% in corporate income taxes, we'd have a balanced budget. The market cap of the top 100 companies totals to $13.3T. We can assume the P/E is between 10 and 15, so let's put it at 13.3 to make it easy. That means these companies have 1 trillion dollars in earnings. Let's assume they currently pay 0 in taxes, which is a bit unlikely, but I'll give it to you. Raising the tax rate to 30% would increase tax revenues by $300B. This is only a small chunk of the $1.1T deficit. The actual tax rate of the largest corporations is about 18.5% right now (see source below), so your increase to 30% would lead to a $115B increase in federal revenue, which is 10% of the deficit. Way to solve the budget deficit buddy.

Info on corporate tax rates:
http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/03/news/economy/corporate_taxes/index.htm


I'm down for removing 115b per year out of our deficit.

[hatelore bloodlust]

Gold's main importance as a currency was the difficulty in counterfeiting it.

Gold's main purpose now is as a manufacturing material.

This fascination with gold is nothing more than economic crankery. Hayek didn't take it seriously and neither did Friedman.

Umm no, the importance of gold as a standard for currency is because it is a precious metal and very rare to obtain. Please go to Wikipedia and read up on precious metals, if you would like to learn why it has been used for thousands of years as a major currency. Then come back here and attempt to edumicate us.

[Alarti0001]

You are really going to sit here on these forums alarti and state that those populaces of people are in love with America. Man, I congrat you for the services you provided to our country. But you seriously do live in a la la land that you created out of thin air.

Yes, I can state that, Have you been to any of those countries? Or is the only thing you can offer this forum is vitriol and assumption?

You said to me the other day that you think I am very smart. You are correct. However, judging on your posts here, you let others do your thinking for you. Go with your previous thought, and I will do your thinking for you, as you seem incapable.

[Lucky]

Gold's main importance as a currency was the difficulty in counterfeiting it.

Gold's main purpose now is as a manufacturing material.

This fascination with gold is nothing more than economic crankery. Hayek didn't take it seriously and neither did Friedman.

Gold is a valid currency as it is a finite resource with intrinsic value in manufacturing (now of electronics) and {misogynistic joke here}. Paper with pictures of dead old men on it is taken even less seriously.

[Hitchens]

Umm no, the importance of gold as a standard for currency is because it is a precious metal and very rare to obtain. Please go to Wikipedia and read up on precious metals, if you would like to learn why it has been used for thousands of years as a major currency. Then come back here and attempt to edumicate us.

I understand you view this as a discussion, but it is not. I am not interested in your opinion.

[Alarti0001]

I understand you view this as a discussion, but it is not. I am not interested in your opinion.

Agreed if you only want to offer opinions as fact apply to Fox"news"

[hatelore bloodlust]

Umm no, the importance of gold as a standard for currency is because it is a precious metal and very rare to obtain. Please go to Wikipedia and read up on precious metals, if you would like to learn why it has been used for thousands of years as a major currency. Then come back here and attempt to edumicate us.

Furthermore, precious metals are vital in the production of all of our high tech technologies and gadgets. There is a reason that China is trying to buy up all of the gold and precious metals on the world market. And it is not to make fancy jewelry.

[Alarti0001]

Furthermore, precious metals are vital in the production of all of our high tech technologies and gadgets. There is a reason that China is trying to buy up all of the gold and precious metals on the world market. And it is not to make fancy jewelry.

Gold won't be precious for very long. We have developed much better conductors in recent years that will be put into production, likely within 2-3 years.

[hatelore bloodlust]

I understand you view this as a discussion, but it is not. I am not interested in your opinion.

I think I explained in my last post where you can go to get your facts good sir. I am on a "not so smart phone" and really don't want to go look it all up for you. Read for once. It can change your life.

[hatelore bloodlust]

Agreed if you only want to offer opinions as fact apply to Fox"news"

oh wait a second, mister pot calling the kettle black. You are stating that all that gibberish you are typing are facts? You sure had me fooled...

[Lucky]

Fox news is the only station even remotely critical of the ongoing circus.

[Humerox]

Toilet Paper Money (Fiat Currency) (http://dailyreckoning.com/fiat-currency/)

Why China Is Buying Gold (http://goldnews.bullionvault.com/buying_gold_022320127)

This group (State Administration of Foreign Exchange) is engaged in a full-fledged currency war with the United States. The ultimate goal – as the Chinese have publicly stated – is to create a new dominant world currency and dislodge the US Dollar from its current reserve role.

I'm not going to go into what's going to happen if the US dollar is displaced as the world's reserve currency...but let's just say not good.

[hatelore bloodlust]

Gold won't be precious for very long. We have developed much better conductors in recent years that will be put into production, likely within 2-3 years.
Man I agree, you sure do have your head on straight! A metal selling for almost 2k an ounce Is far from precious! You got me there gas passer. And any numbnut knows about nano technology. You are talking about reinventing the wheel. That technology you speak of won't be available in our high tech technology for years to come.

[Alarti0001]

I think I explained in my last post where you can go to get your facts good sir. I am on a "not so smart phone" and really don't want to go look it all up for you. Read for once. It can change your life.

You should prob stop reading, since you can't seem to distinguish between opinion and fact.

[hatelore bloodlust]

I have to stop reading anyways since i have a job to do. You know, to help pay for all of those good people on welfare! Woot! Suck it easy alarti :) it was fun.

[hatelore bloodlust]

Toilet Paper Money (Fiat Currency) (http://dailyreckoning.com/fiat-currency/)

Why China Is Buying Gold (http://goldnews.bullionvault.com/buying_gold_022320127)

This group (State Administration of Foreign Exchange) is engaged in a full-fledged currency war with the United States. The ultimate goal – as the Chinese have publicly stated – is to create a new dominant world currency and dislodge the US Dollar from its current reserve role.

I'm not going to go into what's going to happen if the US dollar is displaced as the world's reserve currency...but let's just say not good.

and these good people are stating the facts for me. Go read up on those links. You may learn something today!

[Orruar]

Gold doesn't derive most of its value from its industrial uses. Platinum and silver do. Gold is valued and used as money for thousands of years because:

A) It is rare, which means you don't need 4 tons of it to buy a car (like if you were using iron as money)
B) It is difficult to counterfeit
C) It is easily divisible (which is why we don't use Rembrandt paintings as money)
D) It is durable
E) The total supply does not fluctuate wildly (increases about 1% per year)

Paper money fails 4 of these tests, which is why it only really works when backed by a commodity such as gold.

[Alarti0001]

and these good people are stating the facts for me. Go read up on those links. You may learn something today!

Poor kid never learned how to cite sources ;(

[Alarti0001]

Gold doesn't derive most of its value from its industrial uses. Platinum and silver do. Gold is valued and used as money for thousands of years because:

A) It is rare, which means you don't need 4 tons of it to buy a car (like if you were using iron as money)
B) It is difficult to counterfeit
C) It is easily divisible (which is why we don't use Rembrandt paintings as money)
D) It is durable
E) The total supply does not fluctuate wildly (increases about 1% per year)

Paper money fails 4 of these tests, which is why it only really works when backed by a commodity such as gold.

We arent in the stone age anymore. The value of the dollar is just like any other good. Supply and Demand. If we went to a gold currency the supply would be minimal thereby increasing the value of 1 dollar. This would just change how many dollars you would get paid at work. Its all about what you can get with what you have. Gold would mean you could fill your tank with (bullshittin) 5$. However, this matter little if you are making .50C an hour.

[Lucky]

There's a reason an oz. gold went up $1500 in the past 10 years. Because every fiat currency has destroyed itself, you are witnessing the effects of hyperinflation.

[Alarti0001]

There's a reason an oz. gold went up $1500 in the past 10 years. Because every fiat currency has destroyed itself, you are witnessing the effects of hyperinflation.

All the world market would have to do is decide new values for their currency. Not a difficult concept.

[hatelore bloodlust]

All the world market would have to do is decide new values for their currency. Not a difficult concept.

lol alarti you are funny! And so right! Lets just decide that the dollar is worth more then what it is and it will have to be that way! Infact, to hell with the fungi tunic being only worth 45k , lets male it worth 500k. Your sense of arguing is stupid at best.

[hatelore bloodlust]

You really need to re-read what you type alarti. You are making yourself look stupid , for someone that has been to 57 countries lol. Which I also highly doubt.

[hatelore bloodlust]

Poor kid never learned how to cite sources ;(

and poor kid my ass! I am a young doctor!

[Orruar]

We arent in the stone age anymore.

Yeah, instead we're just in the dark ages, when the Chinese were first learning the disaster of paper currency.

The value of the dollar is just like any other good. Supply and Demand. If we went to a gold currency the supply would be minimal thereby increasing the value of 1 dollar. This would just change how many dollars you would get paid at work. Its all about what you can get with what you have. Gold would mean you could fill your tank with (bullshittin) 5$. However, this matter little if you are making .50C an hour.

Except the dollar is not like any other good. It fails 4 of the 5 criteria I listed as necessary for a currency. The core of it is that people must value whatever is being used as currency. The dollar has lasted longer than any paper currency before because people still trusted that it would maintain a relatively stable value. That trust is being rapidly eroded. Inflation is on the tongues of nearly every businessman these days. We've only been spared the worst thus far because the Europeans are doing a worse job of managing their paper currency than we are. We are able to export a lot of our inflation abroad, but this will not continue for very long.

[Ahldagor]

Doesn't the world trade oil in dollars?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/oct/06/oil-us-dollar-threat-to-america

[Humerox]

Doesn't the world trade oil in dollars?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/oct/06/oil-us-dollar-threat-to-america

The last time anyone threatened to start trading oil in currency other than US dollars was when *cough*saddamhussien*cough* was going to do it. hmmmm....

That was when the Euro really posed a threat to the dollar. Chinese currency based in gold on the other hand...

[Alarti0001]

Yeah, instead we're just in the dark ages, when the Chinese were first learning the disaster of paper currency.



Except the dollar is not like any other good. It fails 4 of the 5 criteria I listed as necessary for a currency. The core of it is that people must value whatever is being used as currency. The dollar has lasted longer than any paper currency before because people still trusted that it would maintain a relatively stable value. That trust is being rapidly eroded. Inflation is on the tongues of nearly every businessman these days. We've only been spared the worst thus far because the Europeans are doing a worse job of managing their paper currency than we are. We are able to export a lot of our inflation abroad, but this will not continue for very long.

People do value the dollar? You seem confused

[Orruar]

People do value the dollar? You seem confused

Yes, people do value the dollar. Things change. This is one thing we should hope doesn't change, as the global dollar standard for the past 40 years has been a huge benefit for people in the US. But if we keep on printing dollars like the Monopoly man on cocaine, we're in for a serious crash. First people outside of the US will dump the dollar, then massive inflation in the US will cause people here to dump it. Look at the history of pretty much any fiat currency to see the rest.

[Ravager]

We arent in the stone age anymore. The value of the dollar is just like any other good. Supply and Demand. If we went to a gold currency the supply would be minimal thereby increasing the value of 1 dollar. This would just change how many dollars you would get paid at work. Its all about what you can get with what you have. Gold would mean you could fill your tank with (bullshittin) 5$. However, this matter little if you are making .50C an hour.

Supply and demand is at work with the US dollar. That's why there's inflation. It's value is being kept artificially "high" by the Federal Reserve. Fact is, they keep pumping more and more money into the system and pretty soon they won't be able to hold inflation down.

http://demonocracy.info/infographics/usa/federal_reserve-qe3/money_printing-2012-2013.html

Unless the government stops borrowing printed money with artificially low interest, our dollar is going to do what the paper mark did in the Weimar Republic.

[Autumnbow]

I'm glad Obama is going to win, if only because 4 more years of his healthcare plan being in action will (hopefully) make it so ingrained in the country as to make it nearly impossible to kill.

It really is time for the younger people in this country to step up and force a third party to be taken seriously, though.

[Orruar]

The last time anyone threatened to start trading oil in currency other than US dollars was when *cough*saddamhussien*cough* was going to do it. hmmmm....

That was when the Euro really posed a threat to the dollar. Chinese currency based in gold on the other hand...

Actually, the last time anyone threatened to get off the dollar standard for oil was the Iranians. Any wonder why we're constantly calling them part of the axis of evil? And before them, was Gaddhafi. Look where he is now. The government understands well what would happen if any major oil producer stopped taking dollars for the oil. But our military power is not infinite, and we won't be able to prop up this house of cards for long.

[Diggles]

you are underestimating the power of really really stupid people.

>implying people actually have an effect on elections and the entire thing isn't decided by the electoral college

[mgellan]

No, he didn't get better, and education doesn't "destroy" religiosity. Plenty of people as educated or more educated than Shermer are still religious.

He was an unbearable zealot that tried to force his religion down other peoples' throats, then he grew disillusioned and became an unbearable zealot that tried to force his anti-religion down other peoples' throats. The common theme is that he's an unbearable zealot. He's not some enlightened genius leading the unwashed masses to rationality. He was once just as fervent for religion as he is now fervent against religion.

Also, lulz at a degree in Psychology. A master's degree in experimental psych takes one year to complete. He completed a shitty master's program at a shitty state school.

Ad hominum. Attack his arguments, not him personally, and I might take you more seriously. My suggestion to educate yourself was an invitation to examine the other side of the argument, and make an informed decision. Don't like Shermer? How's Sagann? The point is if you get all of your Science from the Discovery Institute you're willfully remaining ignorant.

Regards,
Mg

[Diggles]

ad hominem

that's cool, i learned about that in my communications class too

[Daldolma]

Ad hominum. Attack his arguments, not him personally, and I might take you more seriously. My suggestion to educate yourself was an invitation to examine the other side of the argument, and make an informed decision. Don't like Shermer? How's Sagann? The point is if you get all of your Science from the Discovery Institute you're willfully remaining ignorant.

Regards,
Mg

Haha -- okay, chief. You referred to people with religious beliefs as batshit crazy with their heads shoved up their asses. Let's not get too sensitive about personal attacks (or pretend you're open-minded).

I'm plenty familiar with "the other side of the argument", as if there is anything to argue. There is a discussion going on in this thread that deals with whether or not a belief in god is rational -- not whether or not that belief is true or provable. Everyone in this thread seems to agree that there is no compelling reason to believe in a god if you do not, and certainly no conclusive evidence to prove any such existence. By referencing Sagan, you are arguing a point that is not being contested. Sagan was an agnostic -- not an atheist. He didn't believe in a personal god, but that's not the discussion in this thread. He routinely explained that no man could possibly be certain whether or not a god exists. His contribution to the subject was to point out that an inability to disprove a god did not mean that the god in question exists. We all agree about that.

Again: the issue at play is the rationality of belief, not whether a god actually exists. There is no scientific reason to exclude the possibility of a god, or creator. It is a perfectly rational -- although untestable and perhaps unlikely -- hypothesis. If you are hostile to the notion, it is you that is being unscientific. Agnosticism is the only rational and scientific stance to take. There is nothing irrational about being an agnostic theist.

[Humerox]

Actually, the last time anyone threatened to get off the dollar standard for oil was the Iranians. Any wonder why we're constantly calling them part of the axis of evil? And before them, was Gaddhafi. Look where he is now. The government understands well what would happen if any major oil producer stopped taking dollars for the oil. But our military power is not infinite, and we won't be able to prop up this house of cards for long.

True. I'd forgotten about Iran.

War with Iran is inevitable, anyway. The administration - so far - has pressured Israel into not taking action. That's not going to last, and we'll be in it up to our eyebrows.

[Humerox]

As far as religious beliefs go...my beliefs are batshit crazy too, but I'm not running for President, either.

[Alarti0001]

Haha -- okay, chief. You referred to people with religious beliefs as batshit crazy with their heads shoved up their asses. Let's not get too sensitive about personal attacks (or pretend you're open-minded).

I'm plenty familiar with "the other side of the argument", as if there is anything to argue. There is a discussion going on in this thread that deals with whether or not a belief in god is rational -- not whether or not that belief is true or provable. Everyone in this thread seems to agree that there is no compelling reason to believe in a god if you do not, and certainly no conclusive evidence to prove any such existence. By referencing Sagan, you are arguing a point that is not being contested. Sagan was an agnostic -- not an atheist. He didn't believe in a personal god, but that's not the discussion in this thread. He routinely explained that no man could possibly be certain whether or not a god exists. His contribution to the subject was to point out that an inability to disprove a god did not mean that the god in question exists. We all agree about that.

Again: the issue at play is the rationality of belief, not whether a god actually exists. There is no scientific reason to exclude the possibility of a god, or creator. It is a perfectly rational -- although untestable and perhaps unlikely -- hypothesis. If you are hostile to the notion, it is you that is being unscientific. Agnosticism is the only rational and scientific stance to take. There is nothing irrational about being an agnostic theist.

Agnosticism is the belief that man can not distinguish whether or not there is a god and which one is real. Atheism is the scientific stance.

Also you are getting the term confused we are using reason now not rationality.

[Reiker000]

Atheism is the scientific stance

wtf is scientific about atheism?

[Daldolma]

Agnosticism is the belief that man can not distinguish whether or not there is a god and which one is real. Atheism is the scientific stance.

Also you are getting the term confused we are using reason now not rationality.

Agnosticism is the belief that the existence or non-existence of a god is unknowable.

Atheism is a term that has come to mean a lot of different things. Negative atheists are simply non-theist agnostics -- there is no tangible difference. Positive atheists are dogmatic and irrational, and they are not agnostic. For the purposes of discussion, most people -- Carl Sagan, for example -- are referring to positive atheists when they refer to atheists. Denying the rationality of any belief in god is an example of positive atheism.

And no, I'm not getting anything confused. Rationality and reasonableness are interchangable. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rationality

[Lucky]

If the United States loses its role as the world reserve currency we will become a 3rd world nation like Mexico or Nigeria. And you know what, those people at least know why they're slaves, you people are so stupid, and so focused on crap, youll still be talking about Lindsay Lohan when you're a homeless person on the streets.

[Lucky]

>implying people actually have an effect on elections and the entire thing isn't decided by the electoral college

The electoral makes us a republic and not a democracy (arguably the worst form of government since it always leads to socialism).

[Alarti0001]

Agnosticism is the belief that the existence or non-existence of a god is unknowable.

Atheism is a term that has come to mean a lot of different things. Negative atheists are simply non-theist agnostics -- there is no tangible difference. Positive atheists are dogmatic and irrational, and they are not agnostic. For the purposes of discussion, most people -- Carl Sagan, for example -- are referring to positive atheists when they refer to atheists. Denying the rationality of any belief in god is an example of positive atheism.

And no, I'm not getting anything confused. Rationality and reasonableness are interchangable. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rationality

No your modifiers are describing your word. Atheism is without modifier of course Positive and Negative make the word change.

Denying the belief of god as rational is not positive atheism, saying that god absolutely does exist without evidence would be positive atheism.



Atheism is scientific because to be an atheist you gather information and make a decision based on that information or lack thereof. This information can be tested and evaluated by your peers, and you draw a conclusion. Atheism is simply saying there is no logical reason to belief in a god or creator with the information available. Science has not been able to 100% disprove god yet so until then it is not logical to say i am positive there is no god.

The above method is an example of the scientific method in use. Which is why atheism is scientific. Anyone who says they are atheist without going through this method isn't a real atheist. They fit into one of those modified categories.




Try Logic instead of reason then.

[Llodd]

god lawyering gone mad

[Alarti0001]

If the United States loses its role as the world reserve currency we will become a 3rd world nation like Mexico or Nigeria. And you know what, those people at least know why they're slaves, you people are so stupid, and so focused on crap, youll still be talking about Lindsay Lohan when you're a homeless person on the streets.

Back-up this claim or be labled a moron.

[Nirgon]

Bout sums it all up (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio)

[Lucky]

Back-up this claim or be labled a moron.

<object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3B_xBWsDpz0?version=3&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3B_xBWsDpz0?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

[Orruar]

No your modifiers are describing your word. Atheism is without modifier of course Positive and Negative make the word change.

Denying the belief of god as rational is not positive atheism, saying that god absolutely does exist without evidence would be positive atheism.

Atheism is scientific because to be an atheist you gather information and make a decision based on that information or lack thereof. This information can be tested and evaluated by your peers, and you draw a conclusion. Atheism is simply saying there is no logical reason to belief in a god or creator with the information available. Science has not been able to 100% disprove god yet so until then it is not logical to say i am positive there is no god.

The above method is an example of the scientific method in use. Which is why atheism is scientific. Anyone who says they are atheist without going through this method isn't a real atheist. They fit into one of those modified categories.

Try Logic instead of reason then.

No application of the scientific method would produce reasoning such as: "If there is no proof that A exists, then A does not exist"

Science simply isn't interested in things for which there is no evidence, since it is impossible to perform any kind of experiments to validate any hypotheses.

And agnostics don't believe that man is somehow incapable of ever proving or disproving the extensive of God. Simply that in our current state of knowledge and understanding about the universe, that we have insufficient evidence to make that kind of determination. Sounds a lot more like science than atheism.

Atheists have far more in common with other people of faith than they'd like to admit.

[Orruar]

extensive -> existence

[Ryba]

Obama turned out to be just another politician. He overpromised and underdelivered...just like everyone else. So why all the hatred?

A president with an uncooperative congress is not on his own capable of getting the U.S. into the imbroglio it's in. It really doesn't take much intelligence to notice that none of the problems we face--recession/unemployment, war/security, healthcare--are best described on a trend line that is not book-ended in convenient 4-year chunks that correspond with the term of your least-favorite president. Obama, like Bush, presides at the juncture of multiple clusterfucks. How can you not see that?

It really makes you question what is fueling the high-octane vitriol leveled at Obama. Did you think presidents prevent recessions on their own? How do you muster such a passionate dislike for a guy that is at worst, lame, at best, not shitting the bed like W?


If you haven't read this, you should. If your brain is not clogged with poo and bias, it should make you pause before you criticize someone with vastly more world knowledge than you, i.e. the POTUS. Short read, give it a shot.


http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/02/daniel-ellsberg-limitations-knowledge (http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/02/daniel-ellsberg-limitations-knowledge)

[Ryba]

It really doesn't take much intelligence to notice that none of the problems we face--recession/unemployment, war/security, healthcare--are best described on a trend line that is not book-ended in convenient 4-year chunks that correspond with the term of your least-favorite president.


Sorry for the double negative in an already confusing sentence.

[Lucky]

Obama turned out to be just another politician. He overpromised and underdelivered...just like everyone else. So why all the hatred?


It really makes you question what is fueling the high-octane vitriol leveled at Obama. Did you think presidents prevent recessions on their own? How do you muster such a passionate dislike for a guy that is at worst, lame, at best, not shitting the bed like W?

You can argue that he isn't shitting the bed like W (I'd sa he is), but overall he's just smearing W's shit around after he said he would clean it up.

[Alarti0001]

No application of the scientific method would produce reasoning such as: "If there is no proof that A exists, then A does not exist"

Science simply isn't interested in things for which there is no evidence, since it is impossible to perform any kind of experiments to validate any hypotheses.

And agnostics don't believe that man is somehow incapable of ever proving or disproving the extensive of God. Simply that in our current state of knowledge and understanding about the universe, that we have insufficient evidence to make that kind of determination. Sounds a lot more like science than atheism.

Atheists have far more in common with other people of faith than they'd like to admit.

Science ventures out into the unknown everyday. Hence the term scientific discovery. Science would try to solve a question, a question like.... how was the universe created. The god option would be a path to test.

Sorry you failed so hard there. Agnostics believe that the divine is unknowable.

[Nirgon]

Bout sums it all up (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio)

[Orruar]

Science ventures out into the unknown everyday. Hence the term scientific discovery. Science would try to solve a question, a question like.... how was the universe created. The god option would be a path to test.

Sorry you failed so hard there. Agnostics believe that the divine is unknowable.

Science ventures into the unknown, but it does not make negative propositions based upon lack of evidence. It makes propositions and tests those propositions. But it does not state that if a proposition is untestable, then it must be false. It makes no claims under such conditions.

And agnostics believe the divine is unknowable based upon current knowledge. We still have billions of years of evolution/discovery ahead of us. There may be a few, but not many, agnostics who believe that the divine will be forever unknowable. Most simply believe that we don't understand the divine based upon our current knowledge, but that this knowledge is not unattainable ever.

Of course, the definition of divine is not a constant. If we found that a certain entity had created this universe for his own purposes, and had complete control over this universe, we would consider him divine. But perhaps in his realm, his reality, he is subject to certain physical laws and is limited in power. Could it not be possible that he was created by some other entity?

[Ravager]

The real challenge is the fact that any idea of God is so amorphous that no matter what an atheist says to challenge it, there's always a rebuttal that says "well couldn't it be possible that this god is really just a genie in a lamp on Mars?". Possible, but just as possible that Norrath exists on a planet somewhere in the universe or parallel dimension and we're all possessing the bodies of its inhabitants. Prove me wrong. Also, there's only one kind of atheist and we're about as religious about their atheism as a toaster is Catholic.

[Alawen]

There could be a teapot orbitting the sun on the opposite side from Earth. There is nothing rational about arbitrarily believing that it is so.

The God rationale:

I don't know what happened before I existed.
Therefore, giant daddy in the sky.

[Ryba]

Gods and their religions were created so that people could feel as though death was meted out thoughtfully by a universal Daddy who prefers their group. Religious traditions are a peaceful framework around which to structure a life...when they are not compelling slaughter or indoctrination of the "other." The era of deep and nuanced understanding of religious thought is over and the trend now is to codify, interpret and dictate religious literature as though ascertaining an "original meaning" were possible and would lead to truth.

Religious faith is indefensible. Of course it is not scientifically false: it is built to be unfalsifiable. To borrow a phrase from Pauli, it is "not even wrong." It is utterly boring, like hearing about other people's dreams. There is no substance to discuss: only layers of interpretation piled onto a first person singular account of a mental occurrence. Snore.

Lose your religion: be less boring. If you figure out a way back to your god, I bet he will forgive you. Militant atheists are insufferable, but at least they found their way to square one.

[Misto]

Nobody knows shit about the creation of the universe. It's all speculation.

[Alawen]

Nobody knows shit about the creation of the universe. It's all speculation.

Therefore, giant daddy in the sky.

[Reiker000]

Nobody knows shit about the creation of the universe. It's all speculation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang

[Reiker000]

http://i49.tinypic.com/2ueh3zo.jpg

[Splorf22]

Science ventures out into the unknown everyday. Hence the term scientific discovery. Science would try to solve a question, a question like.... how was the universe created. The god option would be a path to test.

Sorry you failed so hard there. Agnostics believe that the divine is unknowable.

Alarti, if I were you I would stop arguing with Orruar, because you haven't won too many rounds so far :D He's exactly right here. There are basically 3 kinds of empirical statements:

* Statements which can be proven wrong (i.e. the sun is blue)
* Statements which have not yet been proven wrong but can be (most of what we consider science)
* Statements which cannot be proven wrong (i.e. God)

There is no experiment you can design that will disprove the existence of God. It's purely a matter of faith or not. Or, to requote Pauli, it's not even right or wrong, just unproveable. And religions are usually designed to make it so.

[Splorf22]

Back-up this claim or be labled a moron.

Well Lucky is throwing out hyperbole but, lets look at some facts.

Greece: 135% debt to GDP, 15%+ interest rate on bonds
USA: 100% debt to GDP, 3% interest rate on bonds, 10% of GDP deficit per year

The main reason that the US pays way less (12% less) interest is that the dollar is the reserve currency of the world. Suppose the US had to pay 15% a year on its debt just like Greece. 16 trillion * 15% = 2.25 trillion dollars. That is greater roughly equivalent to the entire Federal budget. If taxes were doubled to account for it, the resulting destruction of productivity would bring the economy to a grinding halt. There is no legitimate way to clear this up. The US would have to either default or go through a hyperinflationary episode. Either way would involve massive, massive economic pain.

P.S. I love the analogy about Bush taking a giant dump in the White House and then Obama smearing it all over the walls. It perfectly encapsulates how I feel about our two presidents.

[Tarathiel]

P.S. I love the analogy about Bush taking a giant dump in the White House and then Obama smearing it all over the walls. It perfectly encapsulates how I feel about our two presidents.

paint the white house BROWN

[Ravager]

Alarti, if I were you I would stop arguing with Orruar, because you haven't won too many rounds so far :D He's exactly right here. There are basically 3 kinds of empirical statements:

* Statements which can be proven wrong (i.e. the sun is blue)
* Statements which have not yet been proven wrong but can be (most of what we consider science)
* Statements which cannot be proven wrong (i.e. God)

There is no experiment you can design that will disprove the existence of God. It's purely a matter of faith or not. Or, to requote Pauli, it's not even right or wrong, just unproveable. And religions are usually designed to make it so.

I've designed an experiment that will prove it. It's called the stand in front of a bullet train while eating rat poison experiment. Do this, and you will see first hand that there is no god, except the catch 22 is that you won't know it, because you'll be dead. I'll save you all the big mystery of death, it's nothing. It's unconsciousness. It's nothing to fear, because when it happens, you won't know it and there's no knowing you don't know it. It's exactly what it was for you before you were born, only it's after you die. If you've ever been put under for surgery, that's exactly what death is like, except you don't wake up from it.

[Daldolma]

There could be a teapot orbitting the sun on the opposite side from Earth. There is nothing rational about arbitrarily believing that it is so.

The God rationale:

I don't know what happened before I existed.
Therefore, giant daddy in the sky.

I don't know what kind of abuse you've suffered at the hands of the religious that has resulted in your hostility toward the notion of a god, but it's thoroughly irrational.

Mankind has thousands of concrete examples of life being recreated by other living organisms. We have exactly zero examples of inorganic matter transforming into organic polymers that would constitute even the most simplistic notion of life. If a proto-organic life form must have existed, there is absolutely no explanation given by modern science. In other words, believing an organic polymer spontaneously generated and methodically developed into Earth's living population is backed by exactly the same amount of science as believing that an alien, deity, or other advanced organic life form initiated the process of life on Earth -- and perhaps throughout the universe. Read: none.

At any rate, your arrogance is absurd. You have reduced the beliefs of the vast majority of the planet, including minds far greater than your own, to "giant daddy in the sky". I don't understand how such small people go through life believing they are so superior to others. Presidents, scientists, philosophers, and scholars have gone through their lives believing in a god, and yet Alawen of P99 knows better.

A rational person would be content to know that he doesn't know, and neither does anyone else. A rational person would be able to admit that a creator could serve as a rational explanation for the origins of the universe. A rational person could acknowledge the historical existence of Jesus. These aren't matters of debate.

[Daldolma]

I've designed an experiment that will prove it. It's called the stand in front of a bullet train while eating rat poison experiment. Do this, and you will see first hand that there is no god, except the catch 22 is that you won't know it, because you'll be dead. I'll save you all the big mystery of death, it's nothing. It's unconsciousness. It's nothing to fear, because when it happens, you won't know it and there's no knowing you don't know it. It's exactly what it was for you before you were born, only it's after you die. If you've ever been put under for surgery, that's exactly what death is like, except you don't wake up from it.

Praise the primordial ooze, Ravager of P99 not only knows what happens after death but also before birth. Booger-eaters around the globe rejoice.

[Alarti0001]

Science ventures into the unknown, but it does not make negative propositions based upon lack of evidence. It makes propositions and tests those propositions. But it does not state that if a proposition is untestable, then it must be false. It makes no claims under such conditions.

And agnostics believe the divine is unknowable based upon current knowledge. We still have billions of years of evolution/discovery ahead of us. There may be a few, but not many, agnostics who believe that the divine will be forever unknowable. Most simply believe that we don't understand the divine based upon our current knowledge, but that this knowledge is not unattainable ever.

Of course, the definition of divine is not a constant. If we found that a certain entity had created this universe for his own purposes, and had complete control over this universe, we would consider him divine. But perhaps in his realm, his reality, he is subject to certain physical laws and is limited in power. Could it not be possible that he was created by some other entity?

Can you not read? I never said science said god doesn't exist, I said there is no evidence of god therefore no reason to believe that god does exist.

[Alarti0001]

I don't know what kind of abuse you've suffered at the hands of the religious that has resulted in your hostility toward the notion of a god, but it's thoroughly irrational.

Mankind has thousands of concrete examples of life being recreated by other living organisms. We have exactly zero examples of inorganic matter transforming into organic polymers that would constitute even the most simplistic notion of life. If a proto-organic life form must have existed, there is absolutely no explanation given by modern science. In other words, believing an organic polymer spontaneously generated and methodically developed into Earth's living population is backed by exactly the same amount of science as believing that an alien, deity, or other advanced organic life form initiated the process of life on Earth -- and perhaps throughout the universe. Read: none.

At any rate, your arrogance is absurd. You have reduced the beliefs of the vast majority of the planet, including minds far greater than your own, to "giant daddy in the sky". I don't understand how such small people go through life believing they are so superior to others. Presidents, scientists, philosophers, and scholars have gone through their lives believing in a god, and yet Alawen of P99 knows better.

A rational person would be content to know that he doesn't know, and neither does anyone else. A rational person would be able to admit that a creator could serve as a rational explanation for the origins of the universe. A rational person could acknowledge the historical existence of Jesus. These aren't matters of debate.

Saying something isnt a matter for debate, doesn't make it true.


sorry :(

[Alarti0001]

Alarti, if I were you I would stop arguing with Orruar, because you haven't won too many rounds so far :D He's exactly right here. There are basically 3 kinds of empirical statements:

* Statements which can be proven wrong (i.e. the sun is blue)
* Statements which have not yet been proven wrong but can be (most of what we consider science)
* Statements which cannot be proven wrong (i.e. God)

There is no experiment you can design that will disprove the existence of God. It's purely a matter of faith or not. Or, to requote Pauli, it's not even right or wrong, just unproveable. And religions are usually designed to make it so.

winning? I am right in every case, whether or not you think i scored e-points matters very little to me.

[Daldolma]

Saying something isnt a matter for debate, doesn't make it true.


sorry :(

Will you please let the adults talk? You're functionally illiterate. Your own guild is embarrassed of you.

[Alarti0001]

Will you please let the adults talk? You're functionally illiterate. Your own guild is embarrassed of you.

What can't come up with a logical defense?

[Alarti0001]

I don't know what kind of abuse you've suffered at the hands of the religious that has resulted in your hostility toward the notion of a god, but it's thoroughly irrational.

Mankind has thousands of concrete examples of life being recreated by other living organisms. We have exactly zero examples of inorganic matter transforming into organic polymers that would constitute even the most simplistic notion of life. If a proto-organic life form must have existed, there is absolutely no explanation given by modern science. In other words, believing an organic polymer spontaneously generated and methodically developed into Earth's living population is backed by exactly the same amount of science as believing that an alien, deity, or other advanced organic life form initiated the process of life on Earth -- and perhaps throughout the universe. Read: none.

At any rate, your arrogance is absurd. You have reduced the beliefs of the vast majority of the planet, including minds far greater than your own, to "giant daddy in the sky". I don't understand how such small people go through life believing they are so superior to others. Presidents, scientists, philosophers, and scholars have gone through their lives believing in a god, and yet Alawen of P99 knows better.

A rational person would be content to know that he doesn't know, and neither does anyone else. A rational person would be able to admit that a creator could serve as a rational explanation for the origins of the universe. A rational person could acknowledge the historical existence of Jesus. These aren't matters of debate.

Oh also,

http://phys.org/news/2012-08-blocks-life-young-star.html

[Alawen]

I don't know what kind of abuse you've suffered at the hands of the religious that has resulted in your hostility toward the notion of a god, but it's thoroughly irrational.

Mankind has thousands of concrete examples of life being recreated by other living organisms. We have exactly zero examples of inorganic matter transforming into organic polymers that would constitute even the most simplistic notion of life. If a proto-organic life form must have existed, there is absolutely no explanation given by modern science. In other words, believing an organic polymer spontaneously generated and methodically developed into Earth's living population is backed by exactly the same amount of science as believing that an alien, deity, or other advanced organic life form initiated the process of life on Earth -- and perhaps throughout the universe. Read: none.

At any rate, your arrogance is absurd. You have reduced the beliefs of the vast majority of the planet, including minds far greater than your own, to "giant daddy in the sky". I don't understand how such small people go through life believing they are so superior to others. Presidents, scientists, philosophers, and scholars have gone through their lives believing in a god, and yet Alawen of P99 knows better.

A rational person would be content to know that he doesn't know, and neither does anyone else. A rational person would be able to admit that a creator could serve as a rational explanation for the origins of the universe. A rational person could acknowledge the historical existence of Jesus. These aren't matters of debate.

Presidents, scientists, philosophers, and scholars have gone through their lives believing in a god.
Therefore, giant daddy in the sky.

Perfectly rational.
Except for fallacious appeal to authority and argument ad populum.

I'm going to try to explain fallacious appeal to authority to you, because it's a serious stumbling block in your debate style. Consider this argument:

Oprah is a successful businesswoman and world-renown personality.
Oprah says my car trouble is a dead battery.
Therefore, I should have my battery checked.

Do you see the problem there? Despite her well-known intelligence and skills, Oprah is not an expert in car repair. Let's continue with a fuzzier case.

I'm not feeling well.
Dr. Oz says I should eat more superfoods.
Therefore, improving my diet will cure my feelings of malaise.

Dr. Oz is a real M.D. and he might even be able to diagnose what ails me, but he hasn't examined me. He's just giving generalized advice on a television program. His expertise has not been applied to my situation.

You like to imply that there is a host of impressive people who are devout Christians. You gloss over listing them by name, of course, which makes that argument hearsay. However, even if you were to list them by name, they are not experts on the existence or non-existence of one or more deities.

This brings us to the real crux of the matter here. Can we safely agree that it is impossible to prove the existence of a Judeo-Christian-Muslim supreme being given the evidence at hand? Can we also safely agree to extend that beyond those limits and say that it is impossible to prove the existence of any deity given the evidence at hand? I do hope so, but there are plenty of whackadoos who love this argument:

The human eye is complex.
Therefore, giant daddy in the sky.

If, however, we can agree that no one can prove the existence of a deity, I'd like to continue. It is a tenet of both science and law that a negative cannot be proven. Indeed; attempting to assert the truth of a statement based on failure to disprove it is the logical fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantium.

Still with me? Great. So here's where we're at:

It is not possible to prove the existence of God.
It is not possible to disprove the existence of God.

With these two premises, pray tell me: what field of study qualifies one as an expert on the existence of non-existence of God? You can continue to trot out your implied lists of such experts using life accomplishments in science or politics or academics, but it will continue to be a flawed statistical syllogism. Perhaps that's how you choose to make decisions, by basing your life decisions on the opinions of people you respect. That might even be effective depending on your own cognitive abilities. Unfortunately for your entire argument about reasoning and rational decisions, following others is not logic.

To be logical, to be rational, one must be capable of individually observing and considering evidence, forming and connecting coherent concepts, and reaching independent conclusions. Following the crowd is exactly the fundamental behavior that I scoff at in religion and politics, among other things. It reduces the magnificence of human potential to that of the notorious rodent, the lemming, or the more contemporary colloquialism, sheeple. Yes, I am essentially a humanist.

On a final note, it is also important for a rational mind to accept new evidence, even if such evidence disproves earlier conclusions. Of course I can be wrong about things; I'm human, too. I am constantly learning and thinking about things I have limited knowledge in. I am wrong about things every day. It's not my job to tell you that I could be wrong. That's a given, and self-confidence in my own knowledge and intellect is not a character flaw.

[Alawen]

Oh also,

http://phys.org/news/2012-08-blocks-life-young-star.html

It never ceases to amaze me how huge the universe is nor how many of us are researching really incredible things. I tried to follow the comments on that article, but I got lost in the organic chemistry in a hurry.

[Alarti0001]

It never ceases to amaze me how huge the universe is nor how many of us are researching really incredible things. I tried to follow the comments on that article, but I got lost in the organic chemistry in a hurry.

Read the chemistry tab haha i spend a lot of time on that site daily.

[Ravager]

Praise the primordial ooze, Ravager of P99 not only knows what happens after death but also before birth. Booger-eaters around the globe rejoice.

Who's being hostile and irrational now? Think about it. Based on everything that's observable about being unconscious it stands to reason that death is nothing more than permanent unconsciousness. You're nothing more than a sack of chemicals and when the reactions stop, so do you and there's 0 evidence to suggest otherwise. And fairytales passed down for generations is not evidence.

[Ravager]

Further, on any argument about how we're so complex that there must be some form of intelligent design, you should read up on self-organizing systems. Edward DeBono does a great job explaining how self-organizing systems work and it's clear that there is no need for a grand creator to make these systems in his books on creative thinking.

[Daldolma]

Presidents, scientists, philosophers, and scholars have gone through their lives believing in a god.
Therefore, giant daddy in the sky.

Perfectly rational.
Except for fallacious appeal to authority and argument ad populum.

I'm going to try to explain fallacious appeal to authority to you, because it's a serious stumbling block in your debate style. Consider this argument:

Oprah is a successful businesswoman and world-renown personality.
Oprah says my car trouble is a dead battery.
Therefore, I should have my battery checked.

Do you see the problem there? Despite her well-known intelligence and skills, Oprah is not an expert in car repair. Let's continue with a fuzzier case.

I'm not feeling well.
Dr. Oz says I should eat more superfoods.
Therefore, improving my diet will cure my feelings of malaise.

Dr. Oz is a real M.D. and he might even be able to diagnose what ails me, but he hasn't examined me. He's just giving generalized advice on a television program. His expertise has not been applied to my situation.

You like to imply that there is a host of impressive people who are devout Christians. You gloss over listing them by name, of course, which makes that argument hearsay. However, even if you were to list them by name, they are not experts on the existence or non-existence of one or more deities.

This brings us to the real crux of the matter here. Can we safely agree that it is impossible to prove the existence of a Judeo-Christian-Muslim supreme being given the evidence at hand? Can we also safely agree to extend that beyond those limits and say that it is impossible to prove the existence of any deity given the evidence at hand? I do hope so, but there are plenty of whackadoos who love this argument:

The human eye is complex.
Therefore, giant daddy in the sky.

If, however, we can agree that no one can prove the existence of a deity, I'd like to continue. It is a tenet of both science and law that a negative cannot be proven. Indeed; attempting to assert the truth of a statement based on failure to disprove it is the logical fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantium.

Still with me? Great. So here's where we're at:

It is not possible to prove the existence of God.
It is not possible to disprove the existence of God.

With these two premises, pray tell me: what field of study qualifies one as an expert on the existence of non-existence of God? You can continue to trot out your implied lists of such experts using life accomplishments in science or politics or academics, but it will continue to be a flawed statistical syllogism. Perhaps that's how you choose to make decisions, by basing your life decisions on the opinions of people you respect. That might even be effective depending on your own cognitive abilities. Unfortunately for your entire argument about reasoning and rational decisions, following others is not logic.

To be logical, to be rational, one must be capable of individually observing and considering evidence, forming and connecting coherent concepts, and reaching independent conclusions. Following the crowd is exactly the fundamental behavior that I scoff at in religion and politics, among other things. It reduces the magnificence of human potential to that of the notorious rodent, the lemming, or the more contemporary colloquialism, sheeple. Yes, I am essentially a humanist.

On a final note, it is also important for a rational mind to accept new evidence, even if such evidence disproves earlier conclusions. Of course I can be wrong about things; I'm human, too. I am constantly learning and thinking about things I have limited knowledge in. I am wrong about things every day. It's not my job to tell you that I could be wrong. That's a given, and self-confidence in my own knowledge and intellect is not a character flaw.

Now we're having fun. The above represents a reasoned argument. The majority of your posts in this thread have been intentionally inflammatory and dismissive.

Now allow me to explain the point you're missing.

We have agreed that proving or disproving the existence of god is impossible at present. Thus, we have agreed that there are no experts on the subject -- not theists, not atheists, not scientists, nobody. But again, we are NOT discussing the existence of a god. This discussion is NOT about whether a god does or does not exist. You seem to be moving the goal posts. We haven't been discussing the existence of god, and we certainly have not been limiting ourselves to a god in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim image. And when I discuss intelligent people that believe in a god, I have never once limited the matter to Christians, or even members of any organized religion. You seem to assume I'm a Christian -- I am not.

This discussion is and has been about whether or not it meets the basic threshold of rationality to believe that a god -- essentially, a creator of any kind -- exists. If I were citing scientists and mega-minds in order to prove that a god exists, your Oprah comparison would fit well. We can agree that most of the smartest theists in the world have no more specific knowledge regarding a deity than most of the smartest atheists. But that's not what I'm doing.

The appeal to authority is meant to demonstrate rationality -- not validity. It is not fallacious. You can erase the notion of god entirely. There are a vast number of extremely intelligent, highly rational people that believe in the same concept. The concept itself is immaterial. You need not accept them as experts on god -- simply on rational thought. I contend that these experts on rational thought, spread over time, culture, and geographic location, are not united en masse in irrational delusions when it comes to god or religion. They may certainly be wrong, but they haven't all abandoned the rational thought that has marked their careers in coming to their conclusions.

And again, I have made my own arguments regarding the rationality of belief in a god. I have explained that even mankind, in our extraordinarily limited scientific capacity, could rather easily set in motion the process for evolution on other planets. I have explained that we have not been able to demonstrate organic life forming from inorganic material. It stands to reason that, at some point, there must have been an initial organic life form. Whether that life form be infinitely simple, infinitely complex, or somewhere in between, we have no explanation for how it came to be. In the absence of evidence, I wouldn't dare to call any reasonable explanation 'irrational'. It is rational to believe that there is some yet undiscovered process that could convert inorganic material to organic polymer life. It is rational to believe that in "the beginning", extraordinarily basic life forms existed and slowly spread throughout the universe and evolved. It is rational to believe that an infinite life form -- sentient or otherwise -- served as the source of organic matter which spread throughout the universe and evolved. You don't have to believe any of this, but that doesn't make it preposterous.

[Daldolma]

Who's being hostile and irrational now? Think about it. Based on everything that's observable about being unconscious it stands to reason that death is nothing more than permanent unconsciousness. You're nothing more than a sack of chemicals and when the reactions stop, so do you and there's 0 evidence to suggest otherwise. And fairytales passed down for generations is not evidence.

It does stand to reason. It is a rational belief. But that doesn't make it factual.

Much like saying "god exists" or "no god exists", you are expressing a rational opinion with less than compelling supporting evidence. If you believe, pre-birth and post-death, that there is no degree of consciousness and you simply cease to exist, you are very possibly correct. However it is reasonable to consider that you are not correct.

[Hasbinlulz]

intelligent people that believe in a god
You's trollin'.
<object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6bMLrA_0O5I?version=3&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6bMLrA_0O5I?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

[Hasbinlulz]

Now we're having fun. The above represents a reasoned argument. The majority of your posts in this thread have been intentionally inflammatory and dismissive.

Now allow me to explain the point you're missing.

We have agreed that proving or disproving the existence of god is impossible at present. Thus, we have agreed that there are no experts on the subject -- not theists, not atheists, not scientists, nobody. But again, we are NOT discussing the existence of a god. This discussion is NOT about whether a god does or does not exist. You seem to be moving the goal posts. We haven't been discussing the existence of god, and we certainly have not been limiting ourselves to a god in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim image. And when I discuss intelligent people that believe in a god, I have never once limited the matter to Christians, or even members of any organized religion. You seem to assume I'm a Christian -- I am not.

This discussion is and has been about whether or not it meets the basic threshold of rationality to believe that a god -- essentially, a creator of any kind -- exists. If I were citing scientists and mega-minds in order to prove that a god exists, your Oprah comparison would fit well. We can agree that most of the smartest theists in the world have no more specific knowledge regarding a deity than most of the smartest atheists. But that's not what I'm doing.

The appeal to authority is meant to demonstrate rationality -- not validity. It is not fallacious. You can erase the notion of god entirely. There are a vast number of extremely intelligent, highly rational people that believe in the same concept. The concept itself is immaterial. You need not accept them as experts on god -- simply on rational thought. I contend that these experts on rational thought, spread over time, culture, and geographic location, are not united en masse in irrational delusions when it comes to god or religion. They may certainly be wrong, but they haven't all abandoned the rational thought that has marked their careers in coming to their conclusions.

And again, I have made my own arguments regarding the rationality of belief in a god. I have explained that even mankind, in our extraordinarily limited scientific capacity, could rather easily set in motion the process for evolution on other planets. I have explained that we have not been able to demonstrate organic life forming from inorganic material. It stands to reason that, at some point, there must have been an initial organic life form. Whether that life form be infinitely simple, infinitely complex, or somewhere in between, we have no explanation for how it came to be. In the absence of evidence, I wouldn't dare to call any reasonable explanation 'irrational'. It is rational to believe that there is some yet undiscovered process that could convert inorganic material to organic polymer life. It is rational to believe that in "the beginning", extraordinarily basic life forms existed and slowly spread throughout the universe and evolved. It is rational to believe that an infinite life form -- sentient or otherwise -- served as the source of organic matter which spread throughout the universe and evolved. You don't have to believe any of this, but that doesn't make it preposterous.
This is a lot of words to say very very little.

Buh buh buh bwaaaaaaah!!

[Daldolma]

This is a lot of words to say very very little.

Correct.

The point is simple, only complicated by those hostile to a fairly basic, entirely untestable, and extremely common belief. I suppose marginalization must be avoided via volume.

[fishingme]

I'm still voting for romney to piss us democrats off.

[Hasbinlulz]

Correct.

The point is simple, only complicated by those hostile to a fairly basic, entirely untestable, and extremely common belief. I suppose marginalization must be avoided via volume.
Agnosticism FTW

The validity of the existence of god is untestable, therefore I won't take a position on it.

Everyone else (theists and atheists equally) are under operating under a shared delusion.

That's right. I'm throwing 99.99% of all people into the crazy bin.

[Hasbinlulz]

Just because the idiocy is shared by billions doesn't make it true. Conversely, science is true whether you believe in it or not.

Get on my level y'all.

[fishingme]

Agnosticism FTW

The validity of the existence of god is untestable, therefore I won't take a position on it.

Everyone else (theists and atheists equally) are under operating under a shared delusion.

That's right. I'm throwing 99.99% of all people into the crazy bin.

You realize it's the same delusion that you're under right? The basis for atheism is the fact that we cannot test for his existence, therefore he isn't there.

[Alawen]

Now we're having fun. The above represents a reasoned argument. The majority of your posts in this thread have been intentionally inflammatory and dismissive.

Now allow me to explain the point you're missing.

We have agreed that proving or disproving the existence of god is impossible at present. Thus, we have agreed that there are no experts on the subject -- not theists, not atheists, not scientists, nobody. But again, we are NOT discussing the existence of a god. This discussion is NOT about whether a god does or does not exist. You seem to be moving the goal posts. We haven't been discussing the existence of god, and we certainly have not been limiting ourselves to a god in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim image. And when I discuss intelligent people that believe in a god, I have never once limited the matter to Christians, or even members of any organized religion. You seem to assume I'm a Christian -- I am not.

This discussion is and has been about whether or not it meets the basic threshold of rationality to believe that a god -- essentially, a creator of any kind -- exists. If I were citing scientists and mega-minds in order to prove that a god exists, your Oprah comparison would fit well. We can agree that most of the smartest theists in the world have no more specific knowledge regarding a deity than most of the smartest atheists. But that's not what I'm doing.

The appeal to authority is meant to demonstrate rationality -- not validity. It is not fallacious. You can erase the notion of god entirely. There are a vast number of extremely intelligent, highly rational people that believe in the same concept. The concept itself is immaterial. You need not accept them as experts on god -- simply on rational thought. I contend that these experts on rational thought, spread over time, culture, and geographic location, are not united en masse in irrational delusions when it comes to god or religion. They may certainly be wrong, but they haven't all abandoned the rational thought that has marked their careers in coming to their conclusions.

And again, I have made my own arguments regarding the rationality of belief in a god. I have explained that even mankind, in our extraordinarily limited scientific capacity, could rather easily set in motion the process for evolution on other planets. I have explained that we have not been able to demonstrate organic life forming from inorganic material. It stands to reason that, at some point, there must have been an initial organic life form. Whether that life form be infinitely simple, infinitely complex, or somewhere in between, we have no explanation for how it came to be. In the absence of evidence, I wouldn't dare to call any reasonable explanation 'irrational'. It is rational to believe that there is some yet undiscovered process that could convert inorganic material to organic polymer life. It is rational to believe that in "the beginning", extraordinarily basic life forms existed and slowly spread throughout the universe and evolved. It is rational to believe that an infinite life form -- sentient or otherwise -- served as the source of organic matter which spread throughout the universe and evolved. You don't have to believe any of this, but that doesn't make it preposterous.

Actually, you're the on setting goal posts that no one else has agreed to. You might not have noticed, but this thread is chaotic as hell. Everyone seems to have an axe to grind for or against Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Christians, and atheists.

Let me refresh your memory on my statements. I expressed doubt on the historicity of Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad. You raised the writings of Josephus and Tacitus, which I refuted with considerable thought. Your response was a sloppy copy from the summary paragraph of a Wikipedia entry, which contained contradictory and qualified citations. You attempted to steamroll some sort of massive academic consensus which does not exist using hearsay and vague references as your evidence.

I see two major flaws in your current post. Until very recently, it was simply not socially acceptable to refute religious affiliation. It was definitely rational for thoughtful men to maintain silence and go to church. It is only within the most very recent decades in particular parts of the world where public atheism was not a tremendous disadvantage in many pursuits, including employment opportunities, social networking, marriage partners, and housing availability. As a result, casual statements from past public figures regarding religious beliefs greatly resemble coerced testimony. It was simple not an option to openly state disbelief or even doubt without significant personal cost.

In the modern age, atheism has seized to be as great a disadvantage, but it is still significant. Here is a recent Gallup poll showing atheist candidates as less acceptable to voters than Latinos, Muslims or Gays: http://www.gallup.com/poll/155285/atheists-muslims-bias-presidential-candidates.aspx.

The second flaw in your argument is equally significant and leaves you with fallacious appeal to authority. Humans, however brilliant in their fields, are fully capable of completely irrational behavior both within those areas and certainly in other areas of life. In fact, it is not at all uncommon for the greatest minds to have psychological problems and make horrible, self-destructive decisions. If you'd like some evidence for that, here is an excellent article by the late and brilliant Grady Towers: http://www.cpsimoes.net/artigos/outsiders.html.

I find no clear thinking in your arguments. I find them filled with supposition and interpretation and glaring formal and informal fallacies. I don't claim to know the details of your supernatural beliefs, but your agitated tone throughout this thread make it highly likely that you have an emotional attachment to theism. You appear to be wanting to surround yourself with great thinkers in agreement with you in an attempt to justify your own beliefs. While that may be comforting, it is in no way rational. Herd behavior is instinctive, not cognitive. Within your own expressed argument, you have failed to provide an explanation of how belief in one or more deities can be the outcome of a logical process. It involves a huge logical jump over the unknown to a belief in the giant daddy in the sky. This is argumentum ad ignorantium, perfectly analogous to Russell's teapot, and the diametric opposite of reasoned thinking.

[fishingme]

However, fact of the matter is. The theory of evolution pretty much squashes what is believed by religious people whom believe in god.

[Humerox]

I have explained that we have not been able to demonstrate organic life forming from inorganic material.

Not entirely true.

We have produced amino acids from inorganic material. Stanley Miller and Harold Urey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment)used water vapor, methane, hydrogen, and ammonia (along with an electrical spark) to show that organic molecules (e.g. amino acids) could form spontaneously. After Miller died in 2007 it was shown that well over 20 amino acids were produced in his experiment - many more than occur naturally.

This gives great weight to the Heterotroph Hypothesis.

[Hasbinlulz]

You realize it's the same delusion that you're under right?
No, I do not realize that. Please explain.
The basis for atheism is the fact that we cannot test for his existence, therefore he isn't there.
Right, that's a logical leap and therefore invalid.

[Alawen]

Pardon my terrible editing. I meant one instead of on, ceased instead of seized. I have multiple grammatical errors and I have no idea why I capitalized the g in Gays. Whatever.

[Daldolma]

Just because the idiocy is shared by billions doesn't make it true. Conversely, science is true whether you believe in it or not.

Get on my level y'all.

Nobody has said it's true -- just that it's a rational hypothesis. Science is an ever-evolving discipline and conglomeration of knowledge. It is entirely rational to believe that science will one day disprove the existence of any god. It is also entirely rational to believe that science will one day prove the existence of a god. Either way, science has very little to say on the subject as of now.

[Hasbinlulz]

However, fact of the matter is. The theory of evolution pretty much squashes what is believed by religious people whom believe in god.
I squashes the 6 thousand year old earth myth, and the idea that living things sprung fully formed from the mind of yahwe, but other than that it doesn't "squash" the idea of a higher form of life at all. Science has a pretty good rough sketch of events in the last 14-15ish billion years, but what I ask happened before that?

[Lucky]

There are so many gaps in the theory of evolution that it cannot even be considered science.

[Hasbinlulz]

Nobody has said it's true -- just that it's a rational hypothesis. Science is an ever-evolving discipline and conglomeration of knowledge. It is entirely rational to believe that science will one day disprove the existence of any god. It is also entirely rational to believe that science will one day prove the existence of a god. Either way, science has very little to say on the subject as of now.
You said "people who believe in god."
be·lief/biˈlēf/
Noun:
1. An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
2. Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.
So, yes you did say it was true. :P

[Hasbinlulz]

There are so many gaps in the theory of evolution that it cannot even be considered science.
Hyperbole.

[Ravager]

It does stand to reason. It is a rational belief. But that doesn't make it factual.

Much like saying "god exists" or "no god exists", you are expressing a rational opinion with less than compelling supporting evidence. If you believe, pre-birth and post-death, that there is no degree of consciousness and you simply cease to exist, you are very possibly correct. However it is reasonable to consider that you are not correct.

Of course it's reasonable to consider I am not correct. There are an infinite number of possibilities that can be considered, but only the ones that come with verifiable evidence are worth considering. What is unreasonable is ignoring evidence for one argument in favor of another argument that has no evidence or anecdotal evidence which is the same as no evidence since it is not verifiable.

[Hasbinlulz]

Also, will the denizens of this forum please stop being so stupid so that Alawen will stop replying intelligently, causing me to agree with him please? I feel very uncomfortable with this new state of affairs.

[Alawen]

Agnosticism FTW

The validity of the existence of god is untestable, therefore I won't take a position on it.

Everyone else (theists and atheists equally) are under operating under a shared delusion.

That's right. I'm throwing 99.99% of all people into the crazy bin.

This is false dichotomy and false equivalence. The absence of belief in deities is neither equivalent to nor incompatible with belief in the absence of deities. Your position is sloppy and lazy thinking.

[Hasbinlulz]

Of course it's reasonable to consider I am not correct. There are an infinite number of possibilities that can be considered, but only the ones that come with verifiable evidence are worth considering. What is unreasonable is ignoring evidence for one argument in favor of another argument that has no evidence or anecdotal evidence which is the same as no evidence since it is not verifiable.
"A subject being worth considering" and "a subject being wrong because of lack of evidence" are two different things.

[Hasbinlulz]

This is false dichotomy and false equivalence. The absence of belief in deities is neither equivalent to nor incompatible with belief in the absence of deities. Your position is sloppy and lazy thinking.
Atheism is NOT the lack of belief in a deity figure, no matter HOW modern atheists try and make it so. The lack of belief in a deity figure is far closer to agnosticism.

The simple roots of the word atheism, and historical usage of the word until the last decade or two is the denial of possibility of the existence of a deity.

The above is the definition by which I crucify (lol) atheism on the same cross with jesus.

[Hasbinlulz]

"A subject not being worth considering" and "a subject being wrong because of lack of evidence" are two different things.
Stupid no edit.

[Lucky]

atheists are the biggest dummies

[Hasbinlulz]

Also, I think a whole lot of self-proclaimed atheists are actually agnostic, misled by idiots like Hitchens to think they're atheist.

[Hasbinlulz]

atheists are the biggest dummies
I disagree, they are equally as dummy as theists.

[fishingme]

No, I do not realize that. Please explain.

Right, that's a logical leap and therefore invalid.


The validity of god. How is logic invalid? It's logical to believe that when turn a light on by it's switch that it will turn on unless the light bulb is burnt out. However, imo it's pretty easy whether or not to tell if there is or isn't a god simply by praying for the most unselfish thing possible. Religion in god was built as a control mechanism to get everyone to cooperate. The validity of god may not be fully testable in the "does he exist or doesn't he" But there is some major reasoning behind why he doesn't exist.

[Lucky]

I disagree, they are equally as dummy as theists.

n0pe theists have more evidence

[Alawen]

Atheism is NOT the lack of belief in a deity figure, no matter HOW modern atheists try and make it so. The lack of belief in a deity figure is far closer to agnosticism.

The simple roots of the word atheism, and historical usage of the word until the last decade or two is the denial of possibility of the existence of a deity.

The above is the definition by which I crucify (lol) atheism on the same cross with jesus.

Which point in time are you attempting to lock the word to? Original? 18th century? Recent? Modern? The original Greek simply means "without gods."

My views are probably closest to epistemological atheism, which is certainly similar to agnosticism.

[Hasbinlulz]

The validity of god. How is logic invalid? It's logical to believe that when turn a light on by it's switch that it will turn on unless the light bulb is burnt out. However, imo it's pretty easy whether or not to tell if there is or isn't a god simply by praying for the most unselfish thing possible. Religion in god was built as a control mechanism to get everyone to cooperate. The validity of god may not be fully testable in the "does he exist or doesn't he" But there is some major reasoning behind why he doesn't exist.
Your gradeschool conception of the possibility of a god needs to graduate bro. Go take some mushrooms and expand your mind.

[Lucky]

Go take some mushrooms and expand your mind.

[Hasbinlulz]

Which point in time are you attempting to lock the word to? Original? 18th century? Recent? Modern? The original Greek simply means "without gods."

My views are probably closest to epistemological atheism, which is certainly similar to agnosticism.
a- as a prefix means "without or against."
Atheist = "without or against the existence of god"

Now if you put that definition in perspective with the root theist, which descibes one who believes in god, the a- solidifies on the "against" or opposite (a-moral), rather than the "without" version of the definition (a-sexual).

[fishingme]

Your gradeschool conception of the possibility of a god needs to graduate bro. Go take some mushrooms and expand your mind.

It's actually grad school. If the conversation is getting too tough for you, you may as well bow out or look more like an idiot trying to insult someone whose actually trying to have a conversation. Do yourself a favor and grow up out of your pre-teen ways.

[Alawen]

a- as a prefix means "without or against."
Atheist = "without or against the existence of god"

Now if you put that definition in perspective with the root theist, which descibes one who believes in god, the a- solidifies on the "against" or opposite (a-moral), rather than the "without" version of the definition (a-sexual).

The root is the Greek atheos, "without gods." It was an insult. Modern atheism has many forms and variations.

You are perpetuating a false dichotomy. I am not black to an atheist's white. My position is that the entire conversation is pointless noise with a contrived and baseless explanation for the unknown and, in some cases, unknowable.

[Hasbinlulz]

It's actually grad school. If the conversation is getting too tough for you, you may as well bow out or look more like an idiot trying to insult someone whose actually trying to have a conversation. Do yourself a favor and grow up out of your pre-teen ways.
#1 you can't just slightly change up my insult and then use it on me, that's against the clowning rules bro.
#2 you JUST SAID that you can disprove the existence of god with unanswered prayers. If -that- is your level of intellectual rigor, I guess I'd better give up on getting on your level, coz it's just never gonna happen.

[Alawen]

The validity of god. How is logic invalid? It's logical to believe that when turn a light on by it's switch that it will turn on unless the light bulb is burnt out. However, imo it's pretty easy whether or not to tell if there is or isn't a god simply by praying for the most unselfish thing possible. Religion in god was built as a control mechanism to get everyone to cooperate. The validity of god may not be fully testable in the "does he exist or doesn't he" But there is some major reasoning behind why he doesn't exist.

Right now, I suspect there are many people voting for Obama's re-election. I suspect there are at least as many people voting for Romney's election. What is a loving and merciful God to do?

Sorry, it's not a paradox, it's a joke. We get this unbelievable nightmare of free will, complete with manipulation and corruption.

[Alawen]

Shit. I meant praying, not voting. I have to go to work. Bye.

[Alarti0001]

Atheism is NOT the lack of belief in a deity figure, no matter HOW modern atheists try and make it so. The lack of belief in a deity figure is far closer to agnosticism.

The simple roots of the word atheism, and historical usage of the word until the last decade or two is the denial of possibility of the existence of a deity.

The above is the definition by which I crucify (lol) atheism on the same cross with jesus.

you are actually wrong here, as usual.
Theism is the belief in a god or deity figure. (a) in english is a negative modifier.
Atheist is not having belief.
It applies across the language.
Social or asocial
Asocial is not being social. Anti-social is not the same as asocial
Maybe you are thinking of anti-theism....but I highly doubt you think.

[Hasbinlulz]

The root is the Greek atheos, "without gods." It was an insult. Modern atheism has many forms and variations.
I would argue that the vast majority of modern atheism is actually a misnomer for agnosticism. Hitchens et al., have been trying to change the meaning of the word for a while now to try and provide another socially acceptable choice for people. Hitchens at least has said as much. It doesn't make agnosticism atheism, and it doesn't make atheism anything but what it is, the belief that there is not a higher power.
You are perpetuating a false dichotomy.
I see what you mean, but please try and understand the above, as that more fully explains what I mean. I am not trying to paint a picture of black and white, I'm trying to paint a picture of all the gray area that 99.99% of the population miss by choosing either black or white.
I am not black to an atheist's white. My position is that the entire conversation is pointless noise with a contrived and baseless explanation for the unknown and, in some cases, unknowable.
So from that basis, do you find that: there IS a god for sure, there is NOT a god for sure, or that the lack of evidence prevents you from taking a position? (theist, atheist, and agnostic)

[Alarti0001]

a- as a prefix means "without or against."
Atheist = "without or against the existence of god"

Now if you put that definition in perspective with the root theist, which descibes one who believes in god, the a- solidifies on the "against" or opposite (a-moral), rather than the "without" version of the definition (a-sexual).

Anti is against, a is without. Sorry you got confused

[Hasbinlulz]

you are actually wrong here, as usual.
Theism is the belief in a god or deity figure. (a) in english is a negative modifier.
Atheist is not having belief.
It applies across the language.
Social or asocial
Asocial is not being social. Anti-social is not the same as asocial
Maybe you are thinking of anti-theism....but I highly doubt you think.
a- as a prefix can mean several different things depending on context. Go look it up.

[nilzark]

How long does it take to read 479 replies? And what is the record?

[Alarti0001]

a- as a prefix can mean several different things depending on context. Go look it up.

you should probably go look it up

[fishingme]

#1 you can't just slightly change up my insult and then use it on me, that's against the clowning rules bro.
#2 you JUST SAID that you can disprove the existence of god with unanswered prayers. If -that- is your level of intellectual rigor, I guess I'd better give up on getting on your level, coz it's just never gonna happen.

I don't believe that I said I could disprove the existence of god. I can only make reasoning against his existence. The only logical reasoning behind god not intervening in the world's problems would be "free will." So instead of trying to prove/disprove that there is a god, we should be looking at proving/disproving that there is a devil who doesn't care about free will it all.

[Hasbinlulz]

This video might be interesting to people in this conversation:
<object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-_2xGIwQfik?version=3&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-_2xGIwQfik?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

[Hasbinlulz]

you should probably go look it up
you should probably go look it up

[Daldolma]

Actually, you're the on setting goal posts that no one else has agreed to. You might not have noticed, but this thread is chaotic as hell. Everyone seems to have an axe to grind for or against Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Christians, and atheists.

Let me refresh your memory on my statements. I expressed doubt on the historicity of Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad. You raised the writings of Josephus and Tacitus, which I refuted with considerable thought. Your response was a sloppy copy from the summary paragraph of a Wikipedia entry, which contained contradictory and qualified citations. You attempted to steamroll some sort of massive academic consensus which does not exist using hearsay and vague references as your evidence.

I see two major flaws in your current post. Until very recently, it was simply not socially acceptable to refute religious affiliation. It was definitely rational for thoughtful men to maintain silence and go to church. It is only within the most very recent decades in particular parts of the world where public atheism was not a tremendous disadvantage in many pursuits, including employment opportunities, social networking, marriage partners, and housing availability. As a result, casual statements from past public figures regarding religious beliefs greatly resemble coerced testimony. It was simple not an option to openly state disbelief or even doubt without significant personal cost.

In the modern age, atheism has seized to be as great a disadvantage, but it is still significant. Here is a recent Gallup poll showing atheist candidates as less acceptable to voters than Latinos, Muslims or Gays: http://www.gallup.com/poll/155285/atheists-muslims-bias-presidential-candidates.aspx.

The second flaw in your argument is equally significant and leaves you with fallacious appeal to authority. Humans, however brilliant in their fields, are fully capable of completely irrational behavior both within those areas and certainly in other areas of life. In fact, it is not at all uncommon for the greatest minds to have psychological problems and make horrible, self-destructive decisions. If you'd like some evidence for that, here is an excellent article by the late and brilliant Grady Towers: http://www.cpsimoes.net/artigos/outsiders.html.

I find no clear thinking in your arguments. I find them filled with supposition and interpretation and glaring formal and informal fallacies. I don't claim to know the details of your supernatural beliefs, but your agitated tone throughout this thread make it highly likely that you have an emotional attachment to theism. You appear to be wanting to surround yourself with great thinkers in agreement with you in an attempt to justify your own beliefs. While that may be comforting, it is in no way rational. Herd behavior is instinctive, not cognitive. Within your own expressed argument, you have failed to provide an explanation of how belief in one or more deities can be the outcome of a logical process. It involves a huge logical jump over the unknown to a belief in the giant daddy in the sky. This is argumentum ad ignorantium, perfectly analogous to Russell's teapot, and the diametric opposite of reasoned thinking.

My goal posts are the origins of the discussion. Alarti claimed belief in god to be irrational. Those are the goal posts. If you want to qualify that claim to better confront your bias against Judeo-Christian conceptions, then you are welcome to -- but don't try to adapt the discussion without at least acknowledging the shift. I am not discussing a Judeo-Christian god.

You doubt the historicity of Jesus. Your opinion is not well reasoned nor is it the product of considerable thought. On the contrary, it is clearly biased and borderline ignorant. There was nothing sloppy about my copy-pasta, and CERTAINLY nothing that could be described as "contradictory". I claimed that the vast majority of scholars agree re: the historicity of Jesus. One of the sources was Price. Because of that, you claim that the statement is unreliable. On the contrary, the source quotes Price as noting that he is an extreme outlier in the discussion due to his skepticism regarding Jesus' existence. As such, he is a source re: the general consensus of Jesus' historicity. I will re-post the expressed opinions from scholars that you describe as "qualified".

In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman (who is a secular agnostic) wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees" B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. page 285

Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Micjhael Grant 2004 ISBN 1898799881 page 200

Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more." in Jesus Now and Then by Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould (Apr 1, 2004) ISBN 0802809774 page 34

Robert E. Van Voorst Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 page 16 states: "biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted"

James D. G. Dunn "Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus" in Sacrifice and Redemption edited by S. W. Sykes (Dec 3, 2007) Cambridge University Press ISBN 052104460X pages 35-36 states that the theories of non-existence of Jesus are "a thoroughly dead thesis"

Crossan, John Dominic (1995). Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. HarperOne. p. 145. ISBN 0-06-061662-8. "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus...agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact."

Eddy & Boyd (2007) The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition Baker Academic, ISBN 0-8010-3114-1 page 127 states that it is now "firmly established" that there is non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.

These are not vague references. They are not hearsay. They are the accumulated statements of nearly a variety of scholars on the subject. Your opinion, apparently based upon your own research, contradicts the vast majority of historians and scholars that have investigated the matter. Your credentials are non-existent, and thus, your opposition is largely irrelevant. I don't know why you refuse to accept the scholarly consensus regarding the historicity of Jesus, and I don't particularly care. His existence has been established well beyond the typical degrees of historical skepticism.

It would be possible to continue forward and address the rest of your post, but it seems useless. Isaac Newton, in private writings, committed heresy and yet expressed an enduring and powerful theism. Galileo was identified by the Church as a heretic for his scientific beliefs, and yet maintained his belief in a god. Your hostility to the notion of a god is unshakable. On matters of Jesus' existence, you argue against the very authority and evidence that you demand even to accept the rationality of a belief in god. I cannot produce Jesus's skeleton and I cannot produce any god's mailing address. Thus, you may continue to believe both notions are preposterous.

As an aside, your repeatedly incorrect usage of fallacies is amusing. I question your education. You seem to cite them as an attempt at establishing authority yourself, but you fail to mobilize them correctly. There is no argumentum ad ignorantiam, because again, there is no attempt to prove the validity of god. In fact, if argumentum ad ignorantiam has been committed, it was by you. The core of the fallacy is a false dichotomy: something must be either true or not true. If not true, then true. I don't claim that a god's existence is truth -- far from it. It is merely a rational possibility.

[Lucky]

http://www.ww2incolor.com/d/414247-5/img001

Italian partisans display the mutilated bodies of Mussolini and his mistress, Clara Petacci. Yes, Mussolini is hardly recognizable because people kicked and trampled his face until it was very disfigured.

[Daldolma]

So from that basis, do you find that: there IS a god for sure, there is NOT a god for sure, or that the lack of evidence prevents you from taking a position? (theist, atheist, and agnostic)

This is a false choice. Agnostics can be, and very frequently are, theists.

[Ravager]

"A subject being worth considering" and "a subject being wrong because of lack of evidence" are two different things.

I think I can safely put a subject with no evidence in the category of wrong. Especially when time and again evidence shows up that supports other theories while the wrong theory has to twist the facts to suit itself.

[Hasbinlulz]

I think I can safely put a subject with no evidence in the category of wrong.
That's how come I know you're not a scientist. :)

[Hasbinlulz]

This is a false choice. Agnostics can be, and very frequently are, theists.
By definition, that is incorrect.

The state of not knowing is belied by a state of belief.

[Hasbinlulz]

Words actually have meanings, guise.

[Ravager]

That's how come I know you're not a scientist. :)

Because a rational scientist wouldn't consider an unprovable hypothesis with no evidence backing it that by it's very nature requires nothing short of magic to be possible as wrong.

[Ravager]

"its", I'm bad at grammar sometimes.

[Hasbinlulz]

An unprovable hypothesis is a challenge, not an end.

Your mind is closed, not questioning. THAT is how I know you don't understand that of which you speak.

[Daldolma]

By definition, that is incorrect.

The state of not knowing is belied by a state of belief.

You are incorrect. Knowledge and belief are distinct. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism

[Hailto]

An unprovable hypothesis is a challenge, not an end.

Your mind is closed, not questioning. THAT is how I know you don't understand that of which you speak.

Thanks yoda.

[Alarti0001]

you should probably go look it up

I have, I am correct. =)

[Hasbinlulz]

doublepatrickstewartfacepalm.jpg

[Alawen]

My goal posts are the origins of the discussion. Alarti claimed belief in god to be irrational. Those are the goal posts. If you want to qualify that claim to better confront your bias against Judeo-Christian conceptions, then you are welcome to -- but don't try to adapt the discussion without at least acknowledging the shift. I am not discussing a Judeo-Christian god.

You doubt the historicity of Jesus. Your opinion is not well reasoned nor is it the product of considerable thought. On the contrary, it is clearly biased and borderline ignorant. There was nothing sloppy about my copy-pasta, and CERTAINLY nothing that could be described as "contradictory". I claimed that the vast majority of scholars agree re: the historicity of Jesus. One of the sources was Price. Because of that, you claim that the statement is unreliable. On the contrary, the source quotes Price as noting that he is an extreme outlier in the discussion due to his skepticism regarding Jesus' existence. As such, he is a source re: the general consensus of Jesus' historicity. I will re-post the expressed opinions from scholars that you describe as "qualified".

In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman (who is a secular agnostic) wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees" B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. page 285

Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Micjhael Grant 2004 ISBN 1898799881 page 200

Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more." in Jesus Now and Then by Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould (Apr 1, 2004) ISBN 0802809774 page 34

Robert E. Van Voorst Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 page 16 states: "biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted"

James D. G. Dunn "Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus" in Sacrifice and Redemption edited by S. W. Sykes (Dec 3, 2007) Cambridge University Press ISBN 052104460X pages 35-36 states that the theories of non-existence of Jesus are "a thoroughly dead thesis"

Crossan, John Dominic (1995). Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. HarperOne. p. 145. ISBN 0-06-061662-8. "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus...agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact."

Eddy & Boyd (2007) The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition Baker Academic, ISBN 0-8010-3114-1 page 127 states that it is now "firmly established" that there is non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.

These are not vague references. They are not hearsay. They are the accumulated statements of nearly a variety of scholars on the subject. Your opinion, apparently based upon your own research, contradicts the vast majority of historians and scholars that have investigated the matter. Your credentials are non-existent, and thus, your opposition is largely irrelevant. I don't know why you refuse to accept the scholarly consensus regarding the historicity of Jesus, and I don't particularly care. His existence has been established well beyond the typical degrees of historical skepticism.

It would be possible to continue forward and address the rest of your post, but it seems useless. Isaac Newton, in private writings, committed heresy and yet expressed an enduring and powerful theism. Galileo was identified by the Church as a heretic for his scientific beliefs, and yet maintained his belief in a god. Your hostility to the notion of a god is unshakable. On matters of Jesus' existence, you argue against the very authority and evidence that you demand even to accept the rationality of a belief in god. I cannot produce Jesus's skeleton and I cannot produce any god's mailing address. Thus, you may continue to believe both notions are preposterous.

As an aside, your repeatedly incorrect usage of fallacies is amusing. I question your education. You seem to cite them as an attempt at establishing authority yourself, but you fail to mobilize them correctly. There is no argumentum ad ignorantiam, because again, there is no attempt to prove the validity of god. In fact, if argumentum ad ignorantiam has been committed, it was by you. The core of the fallacy is a false dichotomy: something must be either true or not true. If not true, then true. I don't claim that a god's existence is truth -- far from it. It is merely a rational possibility.

Nice. Here's what I think.

I think when I used the word historicity, you had to look it up. I think you went to Wikipedia, read the first paragraph and said, "Aha, I've got him!" I think you blindly copy and pasted it without looking at the primary sources.

I think you exaggerated the evidence supporting the historicity of Christ because you know that two short and obviously modified passages are very scarce. I think you throw around random shit like Shakespeare in order to look more knowledgeable than you actually are.

I think you ignored my analysis of Josephus and Tacitus because you're not capable of original thought or responding to original thought. The majority of the scholars you choose to quote without actually researching agree with me that the Testimonium Flavianum was modified by Christians. Instead, you decided to repeat yourself repeating someone else, a mark of originality if ever there was one. I think you have a fairly limited intellect and that you think intelligence is limited to memorizing and repeating the thoughts of others. I think you know very little about the historicity of Jesus Christ. I think you were not even curious enough to examine my reference to Santa Claus.

I think you tried to infer the meaning of argumentum ad ignorantium and you still don't know what it means. I think when you feel outwitted that you resort to personal attacks and name calling.

I think you're boring. If I want to read Wikipedia, I'm quite capable of typing subjects into the search box for myself.

[Hasbinlulz]

It's rare that I need to look up a word. Historicity is a new one for me.

But it's boring. Much more interesting to discuss Jesus in terms of his story.

[fishingme]

Nice. Here's what I think.

I think when I used the word historicity, you had to look it up. I think you went to Wikipedia, read the first paragraph and said, "Aha, I've got him!" I think you blindly copy and pasted it without looking at the primary sources.

I think you exaggerated the evidence supporting the historicity of Christ because you know that two short and obviously modified passages are very scarce. I think you throw around random shit like Shakespeare in order to look more knowledgeable than you actually are.

I think you ignored my analysis of Josephus and Tacitus because you're not capable of original thought or responding to original thought. The majority of the scholars you choose to quote without actually researching agree with me that the Testimonium Flavianum was modified by Christians. Instead, you decided to repeat yourself repeating someone else, a mark of originality if ever there was one. I think you have a fairly limited intellect and that you think intelligence is limited to memorizing and repeating the thoughts of others. I think you know very little about the historicity of Jesus Christ. I think you were not even curious enough to examine my reference to Santa Claus.

I think you tried to infer the meaning of argumentum ad ignorantium and you still don't know what it means. I think when you feel outwitted that you resort to personal attacks and name calling.

I think you're boring. If I want to read Wikipedia, I'm quite capable of typing subjects into the search box for myself.

wow man, brutal. +5 coolpoints

[Alawen]

a- as a prefix means "without or against."
Atheist = "without or against the existence of god"

Now if you put that definition in perspective with the root theist, which descibes one who believes in god, the a- solidifies on the "against" or opposite (a-moral), rather than the "without" version of the definition (a-sexual).

Incidentally, this is the genetic fallacy. The origin of the word is irrelevant. What matters is contemporary usage. Living languages change constantly.