So that's it for the election.

[Slave]

Obama destroyed the everloving shit out of Romney in the 2nd debate. The election was just decided.

[Alarti0001]

Obama destroyed the everloving shit out of Romney in the 2nd debate. The election was just decided.

you are underestimating the power of really really stupid people.

[Hailto]

Obama destroyed the everloving shit out of Romney in the 2nd debate. The election was just decided.

Are we forgetting that Romney destroyed the everloving shit out of Obama in the 1st debate?

[Hailto]

So how does one irrelevant talking head doing a slightly more effective job shoveling manufactured bullshit then another irrelevant talking head in anyway effect an election?

I would vote Republican if Axl Rose was the candidate who gives a fuck about a random figurehead who has no decision making power and is owned by corporations.

You vote a party in and the second you believe the individual candidate is in anyway relevant to future decision making you are just showing how gullible you are.

You abandoned our befallen group earlier!

[Rain1]

I thought they were going to start trading punches at one point, would have been so epic if they had...

[Slave]

I mean he literally tore Romney's heart out through his chest, showed it to him, took a bite out of it, and then shoved it up Romney's still-living asshole.

[Graahle]

I mean he literally tore Romney's heart out through his chest, showed it to him, took a bite out of it, and then shoved it up Romney's still-living asshole.

Confirmed liberal.

[Daldolma]

I mean he literally tore Romney's heart out through his chest, showed it to him, took a bite out of it, and then shoved it up Romney's still-living asshole.

Dumb.

[Boilon]

Let's be honest if anyone thought Romney will win, they are really kidding themselves, most of the republican nominees this time around were just down right mad.

[Hailto]

Let's be honest if anyone thought Romney will win, they are really kidding themselves, most of the republican nominees this time around were just down right mad.

Show me a European that thinks any Republican candidate ever isn't "mad". You guys are all so far left that the left in the US is moderate to you. No thanks.

[Boilon]

Show me a European that thinks any Republican candidate ever isn't "mad". You guys are all so far left that the left in the US is moderate to you. No thanks.

I'm Canadian actually and yea, most of us do think republicans are bat shit insane

[Reiker000]

Hate to tell you but the election was "decided" a month or two ago. Obama's competition is a man who doesn't understand why you can't roll down airplane windows and who believes that Jesus came to visit Israelites hanging out in America 2000 years ago

[Alarti0001]

Show me a European that thinks any Republican candidate ever isn't "mad". You guys are all so far left that the left in the US is moderate to you. No thanks.

LOL... left of what?

[Triangle]

Hate to tell you but the election was "decided" a month or two ago. Obama's competition is a man who doesn't understand why you can't roll down airplane windows and who believes that Jesus came to visit Israelites hanging out in America 2000 years ago

This is the truth. I would say it was decided 4-6 months ago TBH. Obama is guaranteed to be re-elected unless he somehow dies before the election takes place. Its safer than playing the stock market.

Somebody quote this because I personally guarantee it. I will give away 150k plat in EC if he is on the ballot in november and does not get re-elected, that is how confident i am.

[Xanthias]

LOL... left of what?

Ghengis Khan

[Triangle]

As far as my rationale goes:
1) anecdotal: I get emails from people who are for Romney. They are laden with statements that he is a) muslim b) communist c) not born in America d) has worsened the state of our country.
Now hardcore right-wingers may fall into these beliefs, but the moderates (the ones that really pull the election one way or the other) are generally repulsed by these sorts of accusations and simply cannot relate to them. They cannot relate to them because none of them have been proven, its like that statement at the McCain rally back in 2008 where that lady asked why Obama was muslim or something and McCain had to tell her he isn't. Moderates don't like that type of shit and distance themselves from people who believe it.

2) My beliefs on the Republican foundation: The republican economic philosophy caters to the 1% - period. Don't try to tell me about the trickle down shit, it has been proven not to work in the Bush administration. So you ask, how can a party that caters to the 1% get the majority of a country to vote for them. It's simple, the republicans adopt a social philosophy which caters to the religious and the conservative.
There is an issue here though, the religious majority in our country are not Mormon and maybe they have never even met a Mormon. Certainly in the Southern states mormons are not easily found, and your typical southern baptist will not look at them the same way he will look at a Bush or a Reagan.
Secondly, Romney is unlike Bush because he does not talk with a drawl, he does not act like an idiot, and generally he shows that he is the upper echelon of society in every aspect of his life, including his dancing horse.
Bush may or may not be an idiot, a lot of people think so, but I truly believe that he faked being a "regular guy" to win votes in the South. His goal was to be likeable, a guy you want to have a beer with, and to a lot of people he was that guy. His goal was not to seem smart enough to steer our country in the right direction. Remember Bush Jr. was from a rich as fuck family from Connecticut, but he convinced a lot of people he was just like them.
Romney on the other hand cannot convince these religious folk that he is anywhere close to the same type of person they are, and he has not tried, similar to McCain actually.

3) Obama's 4 years so far: a) stock market up 50%; b) deficit decreased (not sure on %); c) unemployment decreased significantly; d) nothing majorly bad happened, even if you dont like obama care; d) bin laden killed; e) out of iraq

If you read all this, and I know its a book, and you still think Romney has a chance, then I have a bridge to sell you.

[Lucky]

Uh no, Obama did not "win". Nobody won, especially sure as fuck not the American people.

Also FYI as of today Obama only has 271 electoral votes, and thats from Huffington Post's electoral outlook (http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/romney-vs-obama-electoral-map), a heavily communist propaganda rag fully in lockstep with him. You need 270 to win the election. So he is by all chances already behind, and has slowly been slipping, and will continue on this trend.

[Triangle]

I've got a post setup in ec forums betting on this with platinum if you are so confident mate, you should check it out =).

[Triangle]

Also looking at your stats Romney has 206, a lot less than 270, they seem to not be predicting the difficult states? otherwise where are the rest of the electoral votes. I mean What if Obama had 269 then Romney would have what 208? Who would win then?

[Lexical]

Yeah, Romney definitely did not do so hot this debate. Obama made he look like a self absorbed fool in multiple occasions during the debate. But I came on to give all the libertarians on this forum some great news! Gary Johnson will chime in his answers post the third debate so we can hear his stance and arguments. It will be on the youtube stream (youtube.com/politics for those who don't know) so you guys and gals are getting your voice heard.

I am also glad that this moderator had some gusto in her and kept the ball rolling.

Finally, my favorite part was Romney's explanation on how he wants "flexible and talented women." I got a good chuckle at the unintentional sexual innuendo. :D

[Lucky]

Well Obama actually only has 217 electoral "confirmed" (probably less, I mean the source is Huffington Post...)

But if Obama doesn't get 270, the vote goes to the House of Representatives. Currently controlled by the Republicans....

[Triangle]

Ya after reading those stats closely they are not counting 61 electoral votes toward either candidate which they deem "tossup". the 217 they label "strong obama" i would have to say are guaranteed obama after looking at them. Out of the "leans Obama" states I would also say penn is very likely to go to Obama as well as Iowa.

[Reiker000]

Also FYI as of today Obama only has 271 electoral votes, and thats from Huffington Post's electoral outlook (http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/romney-vs-obama-electoral-map), a heavily communist propaganda rag fully in lockstep with him. You need 270 to win the election. So he is by all chances already behind, and has slowly been slipping, and will continue on this trend.

Obama only has 271 electoral votes. You need 270 to win the election.

It wont be close, Obamas a goner

Are you really this bad at math?

Let me teach you how this works. On that map you linked, there are several states that are so undecided they can't say for certain who will get the electoral votes from that state. These are colored gold.

They represent 61 electoral votes that aren't added into either candidate's total yet.

However, (and I'll go slowly so you can understand the math) even if Romney wins all of these states (which is highly unlikely), he'll have:

206 + 61 = 267 electoral votes.

Now, I'm glad you Googled how many electoral votes a candidate needs to win a majority before posting your response. As you recall, that's 270. Therefore, under the highly unlikely event that Romney wins every undecided state, he still lacks enough electoral votes to beat Obama.

[Triangle]

Well Obama actually only has 217 electoral "confirmed" (probably less, I mean the source is Huffington Post...)

But if Obama doesn't get 270, the vote goes to the House of Representatives. Currently controlled by the Republicans....

Look I am no Obama champion but if you take a closer look at the 217 confirmed states and do some research you will say that there is a very insignificant chance of them changing to Romney, just loook at the types of states in question.

[Acillatem]

a) stock market up 50%; b) deficit decreased (not sure on %); c) unemployment decreased significantly; d) nothing majorly bad happened, even if you dont like obama care; d) bin laden killed; e) out of iraq

a) correct
b) Federal Deficit was 455 billion when Obama took office. In 2011 it was 1.3 trillion. A 300% increase in gov't spending under Obama. (Currently @ 1.1T, but since the year isn't over I went with 2011 statistics - doesn't really matter tho....)
c) Unemployment Rate this time 2008 was 6.1%. Currently at 7.8%. 1.7% increase in unemployment under Obama.

The rest is irrelevant as the President was a non-factor, or it was already in the works when Obama took office.

Just sayin...

[Lucky]

You have to recall Romney was a relative unknown until to a vast majority of Americans until the GOP convention and these debates. Obama has had 4+ years of Messiah worship from everyone besides Fox News.

My 150 prediction may have been a bit high. But a good 100 or so; the margin will continue to close.

Obama's only trick at this point is an October surprise.

[Reiker000]

You have to recall Romney was a relative unknown until to a vast majority of Americans until the GOP convention and these debates.

It's astounding just how out of touch you are with the world.

[Triangle]

a) correct
b) Federal Deficit was 455 billion when Obama took office. In 2011 it was 1.3 trillion. A 300% increase in gov't spending under Obama. (Currently @ 1.1T, but since the year isn't over I went with 2011 statistics - doesn't really matter tho....)
c) Unemployment Rate this time 2008 was 6.1%. Currently at 7.8%. 1.7% increase in unemployment under Obama.

The rest is irrelevant as the President was a non-factor, or it was already in the works when Obama took office.

Just sayin...

Ya you seem to be correct on 2 and 3. I should've done my research but I take issue to Bin laden's death being a non-factor because it plays on our emotions.

Secondly and more importantly, you can argue that things "already in the works" when Obama took office do not merely include things that are good, like Bin Laden's death and removal from Iraq, but also things that are bad like the debt increase and unemployment increase. It may be the case that debt increases and unemployment increases were also "already in the works".

[Lucky]

It's astounding just how out of touch you are with the world.

No, it's astounding how out of touch the American people are, especially when it comes to matters of politics. Romney's been on my radar for years, and I guess of the "establishment" candidates it's not a shock he got this years Republican nomination.

Also all those droves of people that came out for Obama when he barely won in 2008... most of them are now disillusioned. Many won't show up, or will have an "anyone BUT Obama" mentality.

My impression: they're both slimy used car salesman types. But everyone knows that about Obama, Romney has a cleaner slate and a lot more mud to sling.

[Triangle]

Obama... barely won in 2008...

Okay Okay, are you serious dude. He has 365 electoral votes to McCain's 173.

[Triangle]

Secondly on that point, they basically announced the election was over before the entire west coast was in. That means the entire west coast could have voted for McCain and Obama still would have won, including California!!!

[Lucky]

McCain gave up in the final legs of the race, but Obama still only took 52% of the popular. In the last 2 weeks he outspent McCain 10 to 1 in swing states. If spending had been the same, McCain would have got the few %'s needed to pull more swings on his side (not that I think he could have won then anyways, because of the amoutn of media worship for Obama). But the thing is, he can't pull that tactic with Romney who has the cash to stand with him.

[Lexical]

I am almost positive Lucky is just trolling..... >.>

[Lucky]

Not at all. And it's not like the results of my prophecy please me, but it is what it is.

[Triangle]

McCain gave up in the final legs of the race, but Obama still only took 52% of the popular. In the last 2 weeks he outspent McCain 10 to 1 in swing states. If spending had been the same, McCain would have got the few %'s needed to pull more swings on his side (not that I think he could have won then anyways, because of the amoutn of media worship for Obama). But the thing is, he can't pull that tactic with Romney who has the cash to stand with him.

Come on, not the whole "you only won because we stopped trying" thing.

[Lexical]

Lucky fails to remember McCain's fabulous running mate whose verbatim speeches were material for SNL. :D

[Llodd]

Nothing is decided. From a country that elects raving loonies and actors anything is damn well possible

[Alarti0001]

I am almost positive Lucky is just trolling..... >.>

as I said never underestimate the power of really really stupid people.

[Daldolma]

Need help: trying to find accurate analogy for the worthlessness of political opinions from elf emulators.

[Alarti0001]

Need help: trying to find accurate analogy for the worthlessness of political opinions from elf emulators.

so what hobbies do people have that qualify them to have opinions? derp

[Daldolma]

so what hobbies do people have that qualify them to have opinions? derp

Making fun of Alarti. It's a populist movement.

[Alarti0001]

Making fun of Alarti. It's a populist movement.

Very popular with the un or miseducated. Please continue to make claims without evidence :) That is a real populist movement.

[Nirgon]

I heard food stamps are getting changed to a debit card that regularly gets reloaded with the hard working population's cash.

Sounds legit.

Can we get a head count on the TMO democratic vote?

[Daldolma]

I heard food stamps are getting changed to a debit card that regularly gets reloaded with the hard working population's cash.

Sounds legit.

Can we get a head count on the TMO democratic vote?

Cannot vote from computer, anti-TMO bias.

[Raavak]

Hate to tell you but the election was "decided" a month or two ago.

Bilderberger meeting (http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/meeting_2012.html)
31 May - 3 June 2012 apparently.

[Lucky]

Come on, not the whole "you only won because we stopped trying" thing.

I never said anyone won. The American people and future generations lost greatly. But being an avid political scientist, it's not like I just pull these things out of my ass.

McCain Abandons His Efforts to Win Michigan - New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/us/politics/03michigan.html?_r=0)
John McCain to quit Colorado? - The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/uselectionroadtrip/2008/oct/22/us-elections-john-mccain-colorado)

Lucky fails to remember McCain's fabulous running mate whose verbatim speeches were material for SNL. :D

That was just the icing on the cake.

as I said never underestimate the power of really really stupid people.

Incongruity to allege stupidity of someone who is right about everything.

[Nirgon]

Cannot vote from computer, anti-TMO bias.

GM favoritism

[eqravenprince]

I try to stay undecided and unbiased as much as possible. There is a lot of information out there to help you decide assuming you don't blindly vote for one party or another. Try this quiz out, pick a candidate besides Romney or Obama so it doesn't influence your answers and answer all the questions http://votesmart.org/voteeasy/?utm_campaign=voteeasy&utm_source=votesmart&utm_medium=homepagead#

I was 82% Romney as my best match, and 15% Obama.

[Hailto]

Cannot vote from computer, anti-TMO bias.

Lol'd

[Hastley]

Alarti , isnt TMO kind of like the 1% here (although a zerg force), and the rest of the server is like the 99 percent? As a staunch obama supporter i call you and TMO to redistribute the wealth!

Sure you batphone at all hours of the night, put in the time to earn your own gear but others should receive the rewards , you need to give just a little bit more away to help the nation (server). Yet you dont.

Alarti and TMO are crushing the middle class of norrath! Do your fair part and give your hard earned pixels away to the uninitiated masses! Its time for you guys to do just a little more for the middle class burden.



Regards

[Autumnbow]

I try to stay undecided and unbiased as much as possible. There is a lot of information out there to help you decide assuming you don't blindly vote for one party or another. Try this quiz out, pick a candidate besides Romney or Obama so it doesn't influence your answers and answer all the questions http://votesmart.org/voteeasy/?utm_campaign=voteeasy&utm_source=votesmart&utm_medium=homepagead#

I was 82% Romney as my best match, and 15% Obama.

This was a fun little quiz, and it seems to somewhat accurate, if simplistic. I got 69% Jill Stein (whom I have already decided to vote for), 64% Barack Obama and 40% Mitt Romney. It's surprising to see the Romney percentage so high lol :P

[Hailto]

Alarti , isnt TMO kind of like the 1% here (although a zerg force), and the rest of the server is like the 99 percent? As a staunch obama supporter i call you and TMO to redistribute the wealth!

Sure you batphone at all hours of the night, put in the time to earn your own gear but others should receive the rewards , you need to give just a little bit more away to help the nation (server). Yet you dont.

Alarti and TMO are crushing the middle class of norrath! Do your fair part and give your hard earned pixels away to the uninitiated masses! Its time for you guys to do just a little more for the middle class burden.



Regards

[philbertpk]

you are underestimating the power of really really stupid people.

this part

[Reiker000]

I try to stay undecided and unbiased as much as possible. There is a lot of information out there to help you decide assuming you don't blindly vote for one party or another. Try this quiz out, pick a candidate besides Romney or Obama so it doesn't influence your answers and answer all the questions http://votesmart.org/voteeasy/?utm_campaign=voteeasy&utm_source=votesmart&utm_medium=homepagead#

I was 82% Romney as my best match, and 15% Obama.

If only "Did Jesus used to hang out with the AmeriJews" and "Should you be able to roll down your window on the airplane" were questions, you might have been able to get over 90%.

79% Rocky Anderson, 31% Virgil Goode, 79% Barack Obama, 51% Gary Johnson, 23% Mitt Romney, 77% Jill Stein

[Lucky]

Stupid people do assume power, that's why we had 8 years of Bush and maybe Obama.

[Raavak]

isnt TMO kind of like the 1% here (although a zerg force), and the rest of the server is like the 99 percent?
I think TMO is like 50% of the server. lol.

[Lexical]

Alarti , isnt TMO kind of like the 1% here (although a zerg force), and the rest of the server is like the 99 percent? As a staunch obama supporter i call you and TMO to redistribute the wealth!

Sure you batphone at all hours of the night, put in the time to earn your own gear but others should receive the rewards , you need to give just a little bit more away to help the nation (server). Yet you dont.

Alarti and TMO are crushing the middle class of norrath! Do your fair part and give your hard earned pixels away to the uninitiated masses! Its time for you guys to do just a little more for the middle class burden.



Regards

Why does TMO have such a bad rep? Just because they don't give to BDA (the upper middle class) doesn't mean they don't give to the poor. When I first started playing on blue, I was nothing more than a mere human warrior. I knew the ropes of the game and worked hard for my tattered/patchwork armor which I crafted myself and I sharpened my rusty weapons to get tarnished weapons. Whilst I was gathering lion pelts to make my armor, a ghoul jumped out of nowhere and I had to flee for my life. I ran through the east commons yelling for help, yet no one answered my pleas, no one but the kind souls Altari and Eccezan. They made quick work of the foul ghoul and I thanked them kindly for their services.

Being a little bit intrusive, they began to inspect my gear. I felt embarrassed by my tattered clothes as I gazed upon the pure perfection that were their items. Yet they did not belittle me, not even one bit. They instead proceeded to hand me backpacks which contained a full suit of Cobalt armor and a lamentation as well as a very sizable chunk of platinum. I was dumbfounded by such kindness and could not accept the offer at first, but as they insisted and being the simple street urchin I was, I could not refuse such a massive act of kindness.

I asked why they were being so kind and they said that they weren't always going to be around to help me so I need to be able to properly defend myself. They told me how hard starting out was for them and know that the armor could be of more use to me than just sitting in their guild bank. Just then someone started flaming TMO in ooc which then spurred me to ask the two angels of kindness in front of me how some people could hate such kind altruism. Eccezan then patted me on the head and told me "TMO isn't the guild this server wants. We are simply the guild this server deserves. So they will hunt and flame us because they know we can take it." And in a flash of light, they both vanished. I have never forgotten that day......

[Pringles]

Obama destroyed the everloving shit out of Romney in the 2nd debate. The election was just decided.

If you believe everything that rolled out of his mouth, sure, he did well. But it was all lies sooooooo.

[Lexical]

I try to stay undecided and unbiased as much as possible. There is a lot of information out there to help you decide assuming you don't blindly vote for one party or another. Try this quiz out, pick a candidate besides Romney or Obama so it doesn't influence your answers and answer all the questions http://votesmart.org/voteeasy/?utm_campaign=voteeasy&utm_source=votesmart&utm_medium=homepagead#

I was 82% Romney as my best match, and 15% Obama.

I took this ridiculous quiz and can someone please tell me how in the world did I get 82% Gary Johnson and 81% Obama? Aren't they polar opposites?

[Daldolma]

If only "Did Jesus used to hang out with the AmeriJews" and "Should you be able to roll down your window on the airplane" were questions, you might have been able to get over 90%.

79% Rocky Anderson, 31% Virgil Goode, 79% Barack Obama, 51% Gary Johnson, 23% Mitt Romney, 77% Jill Stein

Update: Romney was joking. The New York Times' Ashley Parker, who wrote the original report about the Beverly Hills fundraiser that quickly got spread around the Web, told New York Magazine today that Romney had been joking. Parker said that while her report didn’t explicitly indicate Romney was joking, “it was clear from the context” that he was.

http://news.yahoo.com/why-plane-windows-dont-roll-down-romney-221323006.html

But yes, let's trivialize an election of the most powerful elected official in the world by repeatedly citing a stupid joke that you read about in an article and never even heard delivered.

Romney graduated from Harvard's joint JD/MBA program -- cum laude from the law school, and top 5% from the business school. He then went on to co-found Bain Capital, which currently manages ~$66 billion. He's clearly brilliant, as is Obama.

[Alarti0001]

Why does TMO have such a bad rep? Just because they don't give to BDA (the upper middle class) doesn't mean they don't give to the poor. When I first started playing on blue, I was nothing more than a mere human warrior. I knew the ropes of the game and worked hard for my tattered/patchwork armor which I crafted myself and I sharpened my rusty weapons to get tarnished weapons. Whilst I was gathering lion pelts to make my armor, a ghoul jumped out of nowhere and I had to flee for my life. I ran through the east commons yelling for help, yet no one answered my pleas, no one but the kind souls Altari and Eccezan. They made quick work of the foul ghoul and I thanked them kindly for their services.

Being a little bit intrusive, they began to inspect my gear. I felt embarrassed by my tattered clothes as I gazed upon the pure perfection that were their items. Yet they did not belittle me, not even one bit. They instead proceeded to hand me backpacks which contained a full suit of Cobalt armor and a lamentation as well as a very sizable chunk of platinum. I was dumbfounded by such kindness and could not accept the offer at first, but as they insisted and being the simple street urchin I was, I could not refuse such a massive act of kindness.

I asked why they were being so kind and they said that they weren't always going to be around to help me so I need to be able to properly defend myself. They told me how hard starting out was for them and know that the armor could be of more use to me than just sitting in their guild bank. Just then someone started flaming TMO in ooc which then spurred me to ask the two angels of kindness in front of me how some people could hate such kind altruism. Eccezan then patted me on the head and told me "TMO isn't the guild this server wants. We are simply the guild this server deserves. So they will hunt and flame us because they know we can take it." And in a flash of light, they both vanished. I have never forgotten that day......

When I inspected you I thought, "street rat, riff-raff I don't buy that. If only they'd look closer !

[Alarti0001]

Alarti , isnt TMO kind of like the 1% here (although a zerg force), and the rest of the server is like the 99 percent? As a staunch obama supporter i call you and TMO to redistribute the wealth!

Sure you batphone at all hours of the night, put in the time to earn your own gear but others should receive the rewards , you need to give just a little bit more away to help the nation (server). Yet you dont.

Alarti and TMO are crushing the middle class of norrath! Do your fair part and give your hard earned pixels away to the uninitiated masses! Its time for you guys to do just a little more for the middle class burden.



Regards

No TMO is 50% of the server so we represent the rich, middle and lower-middle class. It's trick down economics man! You will get yours ..... I promise,
-Mitt

[Alarti0001]

I heard food stamps are getting changed to a debit card that regularly gets reloaded with the hard working population's cash.

Sounds legit.

Can we get a head count on the TMO democratic vote?

This just in people who receive food stamps also work hard! They just work hard making minimum wage, cleaning toilets and shit, and not sitting behind a computer screen.

[Humerox]

Romney is batshit crazy, and if you take a decent dump, you'll come back to hearing him taking a position entirely different than the one he had when you went to the bathroom. He's sexist, racist and arrogant.

Obama is less batshit crazy, and pretty consistent.

Obama>Romney.

Oh...and he trounced Romney in the debate...and will make it a solid 2 out of 3 in the next one.

[Alarti0001]

Romney is batshit crazy, and if you take a decent dump, you'll come back to hearing him taking a position entirely different than the one he had when you went to the bathroom. He's sexist, racist and arrogant.

Obama is less batshit crazy, and pretty consistent.

Obama>Romney.

Oh...and he trounced Romney in the debate...and will make it a solid 2 out of 3 in the next one.

Ya pretty much religion is for 'tards anyways. But when you start believing American natives were really a hebrew tribe sent over to hide golden egyptian tablets, there is something srsly wrong with you.

Mormons are the next Hale Bopp cult.

[Lucky]

Joseph Smith said the Constitution would hang by a thread and a mormon would rescue the country.

Biblical prophecy is coming to pass, get ready for Obamageddon.

[Lucky]

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

[Daldolma]

Ya pretty much religion is for 'tards anyways. But when you start believing American natives were really a hebrew tribe sent over to hide golden egyptian tablets, there is something srsly wrong with you.

Mormons are the next Hale Bopp cult.

According to Flesch-Kincaid, your last four posts constitute a sixth grade reading level.

The former Director of the Human Genome Project, current Director of the National Institutes of Health, and guy that discovered disease genes (same person) is an evangelical Christian.

[Alarti0001]

According to Flesch-Kincaid, your last four posts constitute a sixth grade reading level.

The former Director of the Human Genome Project, current Director of the National Institutes of Health, and guy that discovered disease genes (same person) is an evangelical Christian.

Are you claiming we should be writing academia in here?

The Flesch/Flesch–Kincaid readability tests are designed to indicate comprehension difficulty when reading a passage of contemporary academic English

There are smart religious people of course, but faith in a god as a creator is indicating a rationality deficit

[Daldolma]

I'm claiming that people way the fuck smarter than anyone posting on this board believe in a god, so trivializing the matter is ignorant. You don't believe in a god? Cool. A lot of people don't. It's not because you're more rational than the Director of the fucking National Institutes of Health.

Nobody knows. Nobody is even close to knowing. We live for 100 years if we're lucky; as far as we can tell, the universe is over 13 billion years old. We still haven't even discovered every species on our shitty little planet -- not even close. Moving at the fastest speed we can even theorize about, it would take us 25,000 years to reach the next closest galaxy. We're fucking clueless.

That being the case, believe whatever you want regarding the origins of the universe. The only irrational people are the ones that think they have a thorough grasp on the possibilities.

[Ferok]

I'm claiming that people way the fuck smarter than anyone posting on this board believe in a god, so trivializing the matter is ignorant. You don't believe in a god? Cool. A lot of people don't. It's not because you're more rational than the Director of the fucking National Institutes of Health.

Nobody knows. Nobody is even close to knowing. We live for 100 years if we're lucky; as far as we can tell, the universe is over 13 billion years old. We still haven't even discovered every species on our shitty little planet -- not even close. Moving at the fastest speed we can even theorize about, it would take us 25,000 years to reach the next closest galaxy. We're fucking clueless.

That being the case, believe whatever you want regarding the origins of the universe. The only irrational people are the ones that think they have a thorough grasp on the possibilities.
True story.

[Alarti0001]

I'm claiming that people way the fuck smarter than anyone posting on this board believe in a god, so trivializing the matter is ignorant. You don't believe in a god? Cool. A lot of people don't. It's not because you're more rational than the Director of the fucking National Institutes of Health.

Nobody knows. Nobody is even close to knowing. We live for 100 years if we're lucky; as far as we can tell, the universe is over 13 billion years old. We still haven't even discovered every species on our shitty little planet -- not even close. Moving at the fastest speed we can even theorize about, it would take us 25,000 years to reach the next closest galaxy. We're fucking clueless.

That being the case, believe whatever you want regarding the origins of the universe. The only irrational people are the ones that think they have a thorough grasp on the possibilities.


Nobody knows, so believe? Dumb

Also the speed of light has long been surpassed in theory. Maybe you should get out of the faith and into the Quantum entanglement

[Lucky]

Einstein and Benjamin Franklin were deists.

The fuk have u done 2 top them

[Reiker000]

What does God have to do with anything? I was mentioning the Mormon belief that Jesus visited the Jaredites, a clan of Israelites living in America 2000 years ago. There's been no scientific proof that the Jaredites even existed in the first place. You would think there would be artifacts, fossils, something...

And yes, of course Romney was "joking" about the airplane window thing. It's either the lamest and least funny joke of all time or his attempt at saving face for publicly looking like an idiot. You decide.

[Humerox]

I thought Einstein believed in Baruch Spinoza?


just sayin~

[Lexical]

Einstein and Benjamin Franklin were deists.

Well, no.... Einstein was definitely spiritual, but not in anyway a deist. Here are some of his quotes about religion and spirituality.

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

I find that those without spirituality tend to lose sight of the larger goal though which is why I have a hard time siding with with either side in this flame war.

[Dagner]

I think the most important issue for this election is decreasing the deficit as this will (in time) affect the economy, unemployment, etc., and honestly, I don't think either candidate will be able to do it without pissing off a ton of people- thus not getting elected or re-elected. And let's face it, that's their goal.

[Ferok]

What does God have to do with anything? I was mentioning the Mormon belief that Jesus visited the Jaredites, a clan of Israelites living in America 2000 years ago. There's been no scientific proof that the Jaredites even existed in the first place. You would think there would be artifacts, fossils, something...

And yes, of course Romney was "joking" about the airplane window thing. It's either the lamest and least funny joke of all time or his attempt at saving face for publicly looking like an idiot. You decide.

If Moses can part the Red Sea, Mormon Jesus can teleport.

Seriously, all religions have some stuff that, without context, seems pretty wacky. Focusing on that is missing the point in an attempt to belittle one's faith.

[Ferok]

I think the most important issue for this election is decreasing the deficit as this will (in time) affect the economy, unemployment, etc.

Nope, it's Mormons and abortions and gay marriage and guns and who has the silliest out of context quotes. Get your priorities straight.

[Humerox]

Well it's not necessarily decreasing the defecit in the way that some people think. You have to have money to make money, and I think the same principle applies to an investment in real economic strength.

Personally I think the entire economic system will collapse no matter what, and we'll all be learning Chinese as a second language. But that's just me.

[Lucky]

Well, no.... Einstein was definitely spiritual, but not in anyway a deist. Here are some of his quotes about religion and spirituality.

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

I find that those without spirituality tend to lose sight of the larger goal though which is why I have a hard time siding with with either side in this flame war.

Deism (i/ˈdiː.ɪzəm/[1][2] or /ˈdeɪ.ɪzəm/) is the belief that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of a creator,

[Lexical]

Nope, it's Mormons and abortions and gay marriage and guns and who has the silliest out of context quotes. Get your priorities straight.

you forgot big bird.

[Lucky]

This was more about the Alarti dumbfuck saying anyone who has ever believed in a God is some irrational nutcase whose ideas we should completely object so I threw out Ben Franklin and Einstein but obviously you can go down the list of millions of these kind of examples. Positive atheism is as blind as a faith.

[Lexical]

Deism (i/ˈdiː.ɪzəm/[1][2] or /ˈdeɪ.ɪzəm/) is the belief that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of a creator,

Yes, but read the fine print. They still believe in a creator i.e. a higher power. Einstein did not. Reread the quotes I posted.

[Lucky]

He said he didn't believe in a personal God. That is buddy Jesus, not a grand architect.

[kenzar]

Appeal to authority all up in hurr.

[Lexical]

He said he didn't believe in a personal God. That is buddy Jesus, not a grand architect.

I will concede there are many of Einstein's quotes that deal with the idea of "a grand architect." e.g. "I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details." But he would go back and forth in the terms of there being a higher power and would refer to such things in a very ambiguous manner. He mostly related to agnosticism and being such, he was a clear opponent to positive atheism which I believe is the main point of bring Franklin and Einstein into this little quarrel.

I digress, Einstein was most certainly an agnostic.

"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being." -Dat big E.

[Saskrotch]

Figures most of you are Obama supporters. Not that supporting Mitt is any better.

Oh Gary Johnson, why can't they let you debate?

[stonez138]

A human being is part of the whole, called by us 'Universe'; a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest--a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compasion to embrace all living creatures and the whole nature in its beauty. Nobody is able to achieve this completely but striving for such achievement is, in itself, a part of the liberation and a foundation for inner security.
-Albert Einstein

Sounds like he was a buddhist.

[Frieza_Prexus]

faith in a god as a creator is indicating a rationality deficit

I submit that that statement is false with the following explanation. Please follow that I am addressing the notion that belief in god is irrational. I am NOT exploring any particular religion or stance. Here, I am ONLY addressing the rationality of belief in God.

Most arguments that faith is irrational tend to be staged solely in a platonic field. Meaning that it is strictly a philosophical exercise using only formal logic. The arguments generally play out so that the answer becomes "God is unproven." However, it is misleading to state that belief in God is irrational because he is unproven without the corollary statement that "God has also not been disproven."

Ultimately, these types of strict inquiries tend to resolve little because someone will invoke the Cosmological Argument at which point the conversation implodes for want of more information in a logic setting that demands perfect information.

TLDR: Strictly logical proofs for or against the existence of a creator are generally found wanting in both directions.

That said, if we step out of the realm of Platonism and into the real word, belief in God can be extremely rational.

Something can be called irrational if there is no reasoning or purpose behind it. If you do something for a reason, we can begin to ascribe rationality to it. In effect, it can be rational for some to believe in God and rational (NOT "correct" simply rational) for others to not believe in God. This is because different people have different viewpoints and different understandings of the situation. Take the following example: Two men both have a disease that can possibly be cured by taking a pill. The first man refuses on grounds that the pill is untested and might harm him. The second accepts because the research indicates that it will cure him with a reasonable probability of safety and success. What you see here are two individuals making contrary decisions because their view or understanding of the situation is different.

I understand that this is not a perfect analogy by any means, but the point is simply to show that both are acting rationally while making contrary decisions.

When it comes to a belief in God, many view the choice as binary. You either do, or you do not. There is no "maybe." What then, is a person in this situation to do? Take two individuals. One, after examining a religion, feels that there is a greater probability than not that God is real. Perhaps it was an examination of history and a prophetic record or something else. Because he views it as a binary decision and feels God is more likely than not real, it is rational for him to believe. Conversely, a person might not feel that the religion has met a reasonable burden of proof and decide that there is a greater chance than not that God is not real. It is, in this case, rational for that person to not believe.

You can call a belief in God foolish, you can call it many things, but you cannot make a sweeping attribution of irrationality to the belief of God in all circumstances.

[Alarti0001]

This was more about the Alarti dumbfuck saying anyone who has ever believed in a God is some irrational nutcase whose ideas we should completely object so I threw out Ben Franklin and Einstein but obviously you can go down the list of millions of these kind of examples. Positive atheism is as blind as a faith.

Derp
Atheism is the lack of belief in gods/deities. It has nothing to do with blindness just lack of evidence.

[Boilon]

what happened to separation of state and church? Does that really happen in America anymore? I like how Romney pulled the God card near the end of the 2nd debate, priceless... A VOTE FOR ME IS A VOTE FOR GOD!

Americans are in trouble lawl

[Alarti0001]

I submit that that statement is false with the following explanation. Please follow that I am addressing the notion that belief in god is irrational. I am NOT exploring any particular religion or stance. Here, I am ONLY addressing the rationality of belief in God.

Most arguments that faith is irrational tend to be staged solely in a platonic field. Meaning that it is strictly a philosophical exercise using only formal logic. The arguments generally play out so that the answer becomes "God is unproven." However, it is misleading to state that belief in God is irrational because he is unproven without the corollary statement that "God has also not been disproven."

Ultimately, these types of strict inquiries tend to resolve little because someone will invoke the Cosmological Argument at which point the conversation implodes for want of more information in a logic setting that demands perfect information.

TLDR: Strictly logical proofs for or against the existence of a creator are generally found wanting in both directions.

That said, if we step out of the realm of Platonism and into the real word, belief in God can be extremely rational.

Something can be called irrational if there is no reasoning or purpose behind it. If you do something for a reason, we can begin to ascribe rationality to it. In effect, it can be rational for some to believe in God and rational (NOT "correct" simply rational) for others to not believe in God. This is because different people have different viewpoints and different understandings of the situation. Take the following example: Two men both have a disease that can possibly be cured by taking a pill. The first man refuses on grounds that the pill is untested and might harm him. The second accepts because the research indicates that it will cure him with a reasonable probability of safety and success. What you see here are two individuals making contrary decisions because their view or understanding of the situation is different.

I understand that this is not a perfect analogy by any means, but the point is simply to show that both are acting rationally while making contrary decisions.

When it comes to a belief in God, many view the choice as binary. You either do, or you do not. There is no "maybe." What then, is a person in this situation to do? Take two individuals. One, after examining a religion, feels that there is a greater probability than not that God is real. Perhaps it was an examination of history and a prophetic record or something else. Because he views it as a binary decision and feels God is more likely than not real, it is rational for him to believe. Conversely, a person might not feel that the religion has met a reasonable burden of proof and decide that there is a greater chance than not that God is not real. It is, in this case, rational for that person to not believe.

You can call a belief in God foolish, you can call it many things, but you cannot make a sweeping attribution of irrationality to the belief of God in all circumstances.

Actually, yes I can. Faith is taking a position on something without requiring tangible evidence. That is irrational in itself.

There is no need to prove that there is no god/diety as proving a negative is asinine and..... irrational.

The burden of proof is on the affirmative, religion doesn't past the test. Therefore, it is irrational.

[Arclyte]

I'm voting for romney because he's white

[Lucky]

Derp
Atheism is the lack of belief in gods/deities. It has nothing to do with blindness just lack of evidence.

Derp, I said positive atheism. Clearly you aren't as educated as you think you are.

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

[Alarti0001]

Einstein and Benjamin Franklin were deists.

The fuk have u done 2 top them

We have come a long long way socially, scientifically, and technologically since Benjamin Franklin's days?

As for Einstein, you need to do some research.

[Hitchens]

I long for the halcyon days of 1776, when men were men, women were women, and most people were dead by 35.

[Lucky]

Ben Franklin discovered electricity and you just blow it off

Shut up you fucking moran

[Alarti0001]

Derp, I said positive atheism. Clearly you aren't as educated as you think you are.

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

Positive atheism is oxymoronic as it requires faith. You were basically wrong and were trying to limit your scope to seem more correct.

[Alarti0001]

Ben Franklin discovered electricity and you just blow it off

Shut up you fucking moran

LOL you think electricity is complicated?

Pretty awesome for back in the day, but civilization has advanced a little bit since then. Come join me in 2012.

[Lucky]

youre a silly girl

http://concept2completion.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/photostock.jpg

[Frieza_Prexus]

Is the following irrational?

A man examines all available scripture, historical sites and artifacts, and conducts a sweeping review of prophecy both supposedly "passed" and that yet to occur. He personally finds that it is more likely than not that these revelations and discoveries are authentic.

No, it is entirely rational. He has what he considers a proper set of evidence and makes a decision to believe. At no point is he playing with blind faith. He has evidence that, in his view, satisfies the proper burdens. He is believing based upon his evidentiary conclusions. When you walk into a room for the first time and turn on the light switch, you expect that it is more likely than not that the lights will come on. That is a rational belief supported by your experiences and understanding of reality.

The belief is rational. Don't hide the ball by switching rational belief with faith.

Lucky: I suspect that you will be far more persuasive in your efforts and appeals if you quit abusing people with expletives and exasperations.

[Reiker000]

Dagner, if the deficit was the major issue of this election then Gary Johnson would be leading in electoral vote count. It's an issue that most Americans know exists but hope if they just ignore it it will go away.

[Lucky]

It won't go away. It's a fake economy built on fiat currency that was built to fail so Keynes could get his global currency the Bancor.

[Hitchens]

Johnson is an awful candidate and appearing on shows like Alex Jones' only cements his position in the land of crankery.

[Lucky]

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

[Humerox]

what happened to separation of state and church? Does that really happen in America anymore? I like how Romney pulled the God card near the end of the 2nd debate, priceless... A VOTE FOR ME IS A VOTE FOR GOD!

Americans are in trouble lawl

Good thing no one asked him which planet "God" came from or how many other "Gods" there are. Or even how the "God" of our planet came to be.

I found it interesting that he sates the uninformed Christian right with "We're all children of the same God," but hasn't been called out on the Mormon view of "God"...which denies one of the central doctrines of Christianity: the belief that there is only one "God".

[Lexical]

I long for the halcyon days of 1776, when men were men, women were women, and most people were dead by 35.

:D

[Lexical]

Ben Franklin discovered electricity and you just blow it off

Shut up you fucking moran

Ummmm...... no... no, Ben did not discover electricity... He merely proved the connection between lightning and electricity. Sorry :(
(some reading: http://www.universetoday.com/82402/who-discovered-electricity/)

[Lucky]

I knew someone would try to get smart. Tell me where electricity was before and where it would have gone without Benjamin Franklin's experiments?

Hint: he was the 1st and only 1 to do anything tangible with electricity besides rubbing fur to make it stick together.

[Arclyte]

I hope Romney gets elected the exact same day Zimmerman is acquitted

[Hitchens]

Tell me where electricity was before and where it would have gone without Benjamin Franklin's experiments?

Franklin only established a connection between lightning and electricity.

[Lucky]

He basically invented the entire field of electricity.

He was the first to label "vitreous" and "resinous" electricity as positive and negative respectively,[38] and he was the first to discover the principle of conservation of charge.[39]

Franklin's electrical experiments led to his invention of the lightning rod.

In recognition of his work with electricity, Franklin received the Royal Society's Copley Medal in 1753 and in 1756 he became one of the few 18th century Americans to be elected as a Fellow of the Society. The cgs unit of electric charge has been named after him: one franklin (Fr) is equal to one statcoulomb.

[Hitchens]

That's simply not true. Franklin was not some sort of mythical superman who the world owes electricity to, that's just folklore rubbish. The rest of your post is just stuff you copypasta'd from Wikipedia and didn't even edit out the footnotes.

[Lucky]

If it werent for Benjamin Franklin we'd be having this argument by chisel and stone and cave paintings.

[Hitchens]

Obama 2012.

[Pringles]

No, we have Al Gore to thank for this.

[Alarti0001]

Is the following irrational?

A man examines all available scripture, historical sites and artifacts, and conducts a sweeping review of prophecy both supposedly "passed" and that yet to occur. He personally finds that it is more likely than not that these revelations and discoveries are authentic.

No, it is entirely rational. He has what he considers a proper set of evidence and makes a decision to believe. At no point is he playing with blind faith. He has evidence that, in his view, satisfies the proper burdens. He is believing based upon his evidentiary conclusions. When you walk into a room for the first time and turn on the light switch, you expect that it is more likely than not that the lights will come on. That is a rational belief supported by your experiences and understanding of reality.

The belief is rational. Don't hide the ball by switching rational belief with faith.

Lucky: I suspect that you will be far more persuasive in your efforts and appeals if you quit abusing people with expletives and exasperations.

No its not reasonable, you need testable evidence to develop a proper conclusion. Belief isn't reasonable.

[Alarti0001]

If it werent for Benjamin Franklin we'd be having this argument by chisel and stone and cave paintings.

No someone else would have discovered the relationship. Relatively soon to his discovery too.

[Lucky]

Based on ____________________

[Hitchens]

The fact that Franklin was in regular correspondence with other people working in the field?

[Alarti0001]

The fact that Franklin was in regular correspondence with other people working in the field?

Not even just that, but scientific progression can only be stopped by mass destruction of knowledge, see the dark ages. Even during the dark ages scientific progression was progressing rapidly(for the time) in the middle east and far east (they just didnt have the internet for rapid transmission of ideas)

[Hitchens]

I think the stress of his awful IRC bet is starting to take its toll.

[Frieza_Prexus]

No its not reasonable, you need testable evidence to develop a proper conclusion. Belief isn't reasonable.

Testable evidence. Hmm, such as the scenario which I presented? Again, it is rational to form a belief based upon examination of evidences. Even in the context of belief in God.

I suspect that you are conflating rationality with your own beliefs regarding universal truth.

[bizzum]

Benjamin Franklin's corpse 2012.

[Hitchens]

Frieza is correct, one does not necessarily have to be correct to be rational. In his scenario, the man wasn't being irrational, he was just wrong.

[Alarti0001]

Frieza is correct, one does not necessarily have to be correct to be rational. In his scenario, the man wasn't being irrational, he was just wrong.

Which is what I amended my statement to reason

[Alarti0001]

Testable evidence. Hmm, such as the scenario which I presented? Again, it is rational to form a belief based upon examination of evidences. Even in the context of belief in God.

I suspect that you are conflating rationality with your own beliefs regarding universal truth.

You actually didn't present testable evidence.

[Lucky]

http://rlv.zcache.com/liberalism_is_a_mental_disorder_bumper_sticker-p128326658491566875trl0_400.jpg

[Frieza_Prexus]

Which is what I amended my statement to reason

My statement dealt strictly about rationality. Yet, you respond with a statement about reasonableness and not rationality. You're telling me that they mean two completely different things here, and you're switching the game up mid stroke. Hide the ball doesn't work here. Please, elaborate on the difference, and why you would respond with that. Was it meant to say that all religion is wrong? If so, the debate is not about the correctness of it; it's about the rationality of belief under a given set of circumstances. From my point of view, this change-up (if it was indeed intentional) appears to be nothing more than obfuscation.

Further, I did present a scenario which contained evidence. Circumstantial though it may be, predictive and prophetic writings, historical substantiations physical and locational, and historic accounts can all be viewed in an evidentiary light.

Now follow me here, at no point did I say that such evidence was correct or appealing to the discriminating palate. I simply used a hypothetical to illustrate a point where one can make a rational decision after weighing relevant factors.

[Alarti0001]

My statement dealt strictly about rationality. Yet, you respond with a statement about reasonableness and not rationality. You're telling me that they mean two completely different things here, and you're switching the game up mid stroke. Hide the ball doesn't work here. Please, elaborate on the difference, and why you would respond with that. Was it meant to say that all religion is wrong? If so, the debate is not about the correctness of it; it's about the rationality of belief under a given set of circumstances. From my point of view, this change-up (if it was indeed intentional) appears to be nothing more than obfuscation.

Further, I did present a scenario which contained evidence. Circumstantial though it may be, predictive and prophetic writings, historical substantiations physical and locational, and historic accounts can all be viewed in an evidentiary light.

Now follow me here, at no point did I say that such evidence was correct or appealing to the discriminating palate. I simply used a hypothetical to illustrate a point where one can make a rational decision after weighing relevant factors.

Shit let me switch it up then, you are demonstrating a deficiency in reasoning.!

[Lexical]

For anyone who wants to know the truth behind the history of electricity: http://inventors.about.com/cs/inventorsalphabet/a/electricity.htm

okay, so the whole atheism vs religion debate is a tried and true one. The problem the religious side has is that it doesn't have concrete and quantifiable evidence that can hold up to the scientific rigors we hold true today. However, due to the polarity of the problem, the concept of a G-d is hard to prove to either exist or not exist.

This does not mean both sides are on equal playing grounds however. The atheist argument does have the upper hand in that they can invoke many of the common rules of the scientific method. The biggest one is that the burden of evidence is on the presenter(forgot what this property is called, sorry chaps :(), which basically illustrates you must support your claim with tangible/quantifiable evidence or it is discarded. The problem with that is that the entire concept of G-d is that of something we could never fully understand. I do feel that the idea of some all powerful being sitting in the clouds and casting judgement on everyone is rather implausible, but that is a very juvenile stance on what G-d is. If you conceive the notion of G-d as the not yet understood or properly explained, then you find an infinite well of power that drives every man or woman to their end goals. It is the same essence many atheists prescribe to, but it holds a much more spiritual role than a lot of atheists are comfortable with.

The biggest problem with strong atheism is it places too much importance on the mundane and you worry more about the details than the overall message, and the biggest problem with organized religion is that it isn't conducive to change in progress and thus stagnates as human thought continues. Of course they adapt, but it takes time. Did you know that the catholic church originally thought forks were a heresy and called them the devil's pitchfork? Think how much the church has come from there. The big problem is when people prescribe too much to their beliefs(emphasis on the idea of belief) be it atheist or religious then they stagnant and become uncooperative.

[Alarti0001]

For anyone who wants to know the truth behind the history of electricity: http://inventors.about.com/cs/inventorsalphabet/a/electricity.htm

okay, so the whole atheism vs religion debate is a tried and true one. The problem the religious side has is that it doesn't have concrete and quantifiable evidence that can hold up to the scientific rigors we hold true today. However, due to the polarity of the problem, the concept of a G-d is hard to prove to either exist or not exist.

This does not mean both sides are on equal playing grounds however. The atheist argument does have the upper hand in that they can invoke many of the common rules of the scientific method. The biggest one is that the burden of evidence is on the presenter(forgot what this property is called, sorry chaps :(), which basically illustrates you must support your claim with tangible/quantifiable evidence or it is discarded. The problem with that is that the entire concept of G-d is that of something we could never fully understand. I do feel that the idea of some all powerful being sitting in the clouds and casting judgement on everyone is rather implausible, but that is a very juvenile stance on what G-d is. If you conceive the notion of G-d as the not yet understood or properly explained, then you find an infinite well of power that drives every man or woman to their end goals. It is the same essence many atheists prescribe to, but it holds a much more spiritual role than a lot of atheists are comfortable with.

The biggest problem with strong atheism is it places too much importance on the mundane and you worry more about the details than the overall message, and the biggest problem with organized religion is that it isn't conducive to change in progress and thus stagnates as human thought continues. Of course they adapt, but it takes time. Did you know that the catholic church originally thought forks were a heresy and called them the devil's pitchfork? Think how much the church has come from there. The big problem is when people prescribe too much to their beliefs(emphasis on the idea of belief) be it atheist or religious then they stagnant and become uncooperative.

strong atheism is bunk, atheism is the product of logical conclusions, strong atheism is almost a religion

[Lucky]

For anyone who wants to know the truth behind the history of electricity: http://inventors.about.com/cs/inventorsalphabet/a/electricity.htm

Haha before Franklin we have some dude playing with magnets and a couple of guys shocking themselves with static electricity. My cat could do both of those things.

Franklin was the first one to start trying to find its formal laws and properties and created its place as a scientific field.

[Lexical]

Haha before Franklin we have some dude playing with magnets and a couple of guys shocking themselves with static electricity. My cat could do both of those things.

Franklin was the first one to start trying to find its formal laws and properties and created its place as a scientific field.

Sigh despite my better judgement since I am almost positive this whole thing is a troll, from the article:
" Otto von Guericke proved that a vacuum could exist. Creating a vacuum was essential for all kinds of further research into electronics. In 1660, Otto von Guericke invented a machine that produced static electricity, this was the first electric generator."
The first giant leap into the study of electricity. Otto Von Guericke made the first electric generator.

"In 1729, Stephen Gray discovered the principle of the conduction of electricity.

In 1733, Charles Francois du Fay discovered that electricity comes in two forms which he called resinous (-) and vitreous (+), now called negative and positive. "

The basic properties of the electricity.

"The leyden jar was invented Holland in 1745 and in Germany almost simultaneously."

The leyden jar was the original capacitor which is an integral component in every modern electrical device.

Ben Franklin discovered lightning and electricity were one and the same. That is about it. Not saying he wasn't a great man. His research on flatulence was marvelous. :D
(Sauce: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fart_Proudly)

Anywho, the biggest pioneers in the area of electricity were Telsa, Eddison and George Ohm. They discovered most of the properties of electricity.

[Lexical]

strong atheism is bunk, atheism is the product of logical conclusions, strong atheism is almost a religion

I agree. Militant atheists are generally so in love with science they don't really understand the entire philosophy behind it and worship it in a manner close to a religion.

However, atheism in generally still prescribes to the belief that there is definitively no G-d which is just as unproven as the existence of G-d. The common argument I hear for the lack of existence of G-d(and I am open to hear other ones but I will probably find some logically fallacy in it) is the burden of proof argument which only is applicable when one makes the statement G-d exists. It becomes your burden of proof when you make the claim G-d does not exist.

One can not simply make the argument that since there is no evidence to support something exists, then it does not exist. This is a logical fallacy and a misuse of the scientific method which most if not all atheists prescribe to. One can only make the claim that the existence of G-d can not be determined and therefore neither side can logically claim it is right. The scientific community actually assumes a lot of things to exist before actually proving that they do. This is so we can model all areas of a field so it is easier to understand. We see such happenings in the scientific community all the time. For example, the Higgs boson which people were sure it existed but we had no proof of its existence for sometime. The scientific community developed many theories including the standard model all under the assumption that the Higgs boson existed (and thankfully we found that it does :D) and science was able to grow. The standard model was taught in all classes as a strong theory(not fact as the scientific model does not support "facts") for a long time based on this certainty. We still treat gravity as its own separate force despite having absolutely no evidence of a gravitron force particle.

The underlying issue is that when you state "G-d does not exist" then you are saying without a doubt G-d does not exist. The scientific method can never and will never support such a bold claim so you are only left in the realm of philosophy. This makes logical reasoning very hard as you are trying to logically reason something outside that of logic and reason since both are man made constructs and therefore could not comprehend what G-d is.

[Lucky]

Benjamin Franklin conjectured, correctly, that St. Elmo's fire was electrical in nature, but it has taken a long series of experiments and theoretical changes to establish this.



AKA the 1st 1

[Lexical]

Benjamin Franklin conjectured, correctly, that St. Elmo's fire was electrical in nature, but it has taken a long series of experiments and theoretical changes to establish this.



AKA the 1st 1

Benjamin Franklin was an extraterrestrial race similar to the ants therefore had only a hive mind mentality so he only produced the entire theory of whatever the fuck you are talking about with the help of his billion+ alien brothers and sisters! >:(

[Lucky]

In the 18th century, Benjamin Franklin conducted extensive research in electricity, selling his possessions to fund his work.

All so you can sit on ur ass and downplay his accomplishments.


Also when u search http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity for names, Ben Franklin shows up 7 times and those noobs you mentioned barely even share 1 sentence.

[Lucky]

Ohm 5 mentions, Tesla 2 mentions, Edison 4.

AKA Ben Franklin most important person in the field of electricity

[Lexical]

Ohm 5 mentions, Tesla 2 mentions, Edison 4.

AKA Ben Franklin most important person in the field of electricity

http://i.qkme.me/35icg4.jpg

[Lucky]

The Constitution has been eviscerated while Democrats have stood by with nary a whimper. It is a gutless, unprincipled party, bought and paid for by the same interests that buy and pay for the Republican Party.

[Hasbinlulz]

In the 18th century, Benjamin Franklin conducted extensive research in electricity, selling his possessions to fund his work.

All so you can sit on ur ass and downplay his accomplishments.

Also when u search http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity for names, Ben Franklin shows up 7 times and those noobs you mentioned barely even share 1 sentence.
Not sur if cyrius.

[Lucky]

http://gulagbound.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Open-Secrets-Obama-Romney.jpg

[Reiker000]

Naez gets his political direction from Facebook memes.

[Hasbinlulz]

Naez gets his political direction from Facebook memes.
You get your political direction from Adolf Hitler.

I prefer Naez.

[Reiker000]

You get your political direction from Adolf Hitler.

I prefer Naez.

You're right, I'm always posting pro-Hitler propaganda. Like, all the time. Every post. Hitler hitler hitler. You got me.

[Hasbinlulz]

That's pretty much what I just said, why are you echoing me now?

[Alawen]

I agree. Militant atheists are generally so in love with science they don't really understand the entire philosophy behind it and worship it in a manner close to a religion.

However, atheism in generally still prescribes to the belief that there is definitively no G-d which is just as unproven as the existence of G-d. The common argument I hear for the lack of existence of G-d(and I am open to hear other ones but I will probably find some logically fallacy in it) is the burden of proof argument which only is applicable when one makes the statement G-d exists. It becomes your burden of proof when you make the claim G-d does not exist.

One can not simply make the argument that since there is no evidence to support something exists, then it does not exist. This is a logical fallacy and a misuse of the scientific method which most if not all atheists prescribe to. One can only make the claim that the existence of G-d can not be determined and therefore neither side can logically claim it is right. The scientific community actually assumes a lot of things to exist before actually proving that they do. This is so we can model all areas of a field so it is easier to understand. We see such happenings in the scientific community all the time. For example, the Higgs boson which people were sure it existed but we had no proof of its existence for sometime. The scientific community developed many theories including the standard model all under the assumption that the Higgs boson existed (and thankfully we found that it does :D) and science was able to grow. The standard model was taught in all classes as a strong theory(not fact as the scientific model does not support "facts") for a long time based on this certainty. We still treat gravity as its own separate force despite having absolutely no evidence of a gravitron force particle.

The underlying issue is that when you state "G-d does not exist" then you are saying without a doubt G-d does not exist. The scientific method can never and will never support such a bold claim so you are only left in the realm of philosophy. This makes logical reasoning very hard as you are trying to logically reason something outside that of logic and reason since both are man made constructs and therefore could not comprehend what G-d is.

And you, sir, have just committed the logical fallacy of hasty generalization. I am a declared atheist because I find absolutely no reason to believe in a deity. I spent many years trying to understand why there was such a widespread belief when I felt absolutely nothing. I found great peace when I ultimately discovered the theory of a proto-Indo-European religion.

As for Frieza's proposed scenario, it is patently ridiculous despite Alarti's poor refutation of it. No one chooses to believe in Christianity or any religion based on evidence or historicity. There is no verifiable evidence for even the existence of Buddha, Jesus Christ, or Muhammad, much less the authenticity of any of their claims. People seem to believe in religion either because their parents told them to or because they feel an unfulfilled need in their lives.

The most interesting thing about this thread, to me, is that it turned into an argument against atheism rather than addressing the very clear differences between Mormonism and more common Christianity. Apparently no one wants to defend magic underwear and teleporting Jesus.

[Alarti0001]

And you, sir, have just committed the logical fallacy of hasty generalization. I am a declared atheist because I find absolutely no reason to believe in a deity. I spent many years trying to understand why there was such a widespread belief when I felt absolutely nothing. I found great peace when I ultimately discovered the theory of a proto-Indo-European religion.

As for Frieza's proposed scenario, it is patently ridiculous despite Alarti's poor refutation of it. No one chooses to believe in Christianity or any religion based on evidence or historicity. There is no verifiable evidence for even the existence of Buddha, Jesus Christ, or Muhammad, much less the authenticity of any of their claims. People seem to believe in religion either because their parents told them to or because they feel an unfulfilled need in their lives.

The most interesting thing about this thread, to me, is that it turned into an argument against atheism rather than addressing the very clear differences between Mormonism and more common Christianity. Apparently no one wants to defend magic underwear and teleporting Jesus.

true atheism does not say, "i know there isn't a god or creator" it does say, "there is no reason to believe in a god/creator"

[Alarti0001]

The Constitution has been eviscerated while Democrats have stood by with nary a whimper. It is a gutless, unprincipled party, bought and paid for by the same interests that buy and pay for the Republican Party.

Oh.... do tell me how the constitution is being eviscerated :)

[Alarti0001]

Ohm 5 mentions, Tesla 2 mentions, Edison 4.

AKA Ben Franklin most important person in the field of electricity

MMM i see the results of and obviously if someone gets mentioned more that means their work is more important?

U dum

[Daldolma]

And you, sir, have just committed the logical fallacy of hasty generalization. I am a declared atheist because I find absolutely no reason to believe in a deity. I spent many years trying to understand why there was such a widespread belief when I felt absolutely nothing. I found great peace when I ultimately discovered the theory of a proto-Indo-European religion.

As for Frieza's proposed scenario, it is patently ridiculous despite Alarti's poor refutation of it. No one chooses to believe in Christianity or any religion based on evidence or historicity. There is no verifiable evidence for even the existence of Buddha, Jesus Christ, or Muhammad, much less the authenticity of any of their claims. People seem to believe in religion either because their parents told them to or because they feel an unfulfilled need in their lives.

The most interesting thing about this thread, to me, is that it turned into an argument against atheism rather than addressing the very clear differences between Mormonism and more common Christianity. Apparently no one wants to defend magic underwear and teleporting Jesus.

I don't know where you think you read this, but it's absolutely ridiculous. There are a dozen sources that reference Jesus during his lifetime and the immediate aftermath, including non-Christian sources. Josephus and Tacitus both discussed Jesus extensively. We're as sure Jesus existed as we are sure about essentially anything that happened 2000 years ago.

It's also, again, extremely condescending to say that people believe in religion "because their parents told them to or they feel an unfulfilled need in their lives." You're less intelligent, less rational, and less fulfilled than a great number of people that believe in religion. That's not an insult, it's a fact -- and it goes for everyone else on here, too, so don't worry about it. There are verifiable geniuses, including scientific geniuses, that believe in the existence of a god. It's not because they haven't considered the notion that, hey, maybe there isn't one. It's not because their mom and dad told them to and they can't shake it after 50+ years. It's not because they can't handle the idea of a life without a god. You talk about remarkably intelligent adults like you're their all-knowing parent. Respect viewpoints other than your own.

Why do they believe, then? Because it is a logical belief. Because it is entirely rational to believe in the existence of a creator. The only life humans have ever been able to prove exists has come from other life. We've even created new life ourselves. Since all existing evidence has shown that life comes from other life, it is entirely rational to believe that there was a proto life form that birthed all the others. The image of that life form differs greatly, but that doesn't mark illogic. Many scientists believe life began on Earth with organic monomers condensing into polymers. There is no evidence for this, but they believe it -- because it had to start somewhere. What's the difference between believing in an infinitely simple organic polymer jump starting the evolution of life on Earth and an infinitely complex life form birthing the building blocks of life in the universe? Why is one more likely than the other? Because one adheres more easily to our 150 year old theory of evolution? The arrogance of humans is astounding to me sometimes. We've been kicking around this theory for a few generations in the midst of a 13+ billion year old universe and we think we've got a handle on it now. Yup, must've been ooze. Done and done. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain telling you that if we're assuming the spontaneous formation of complex polymers constituting life, then we may as well assume the spontaneous existence of any form of life. Neither has a basis in known science. We've tried to create organic polymers from monomers by replicating the early period of the Earth -- doesn't work.

Anyway, religion and god are very different. Believing that Mary was a virgin is much closer to bordering on the irrational. That's not to say it's not possible, because it is. But the canon of organized religion is often "irrational" without granting the initial conceit that a god exists in the image of that religion. Believing in a god, or a creator of some type, is very different and entirely rational. But if you're granting the rationality of a god, then you should be willing to grant the rationality of a few of the more common images of god. You don't need to grant that he was an interstellar conqueror named Xenu, but the image of a personal god is rational enough. If there were a personal god, it would be conceivable that he would try to impact mankind -- possibly via a messenger. Etc, etc. You can keep going down this road forever. But the genesis of it all is a belief in a creator -- which is objectively rational, even if it may ultimately be untrue.

[Alawen]

true atheism does not say, "i know there isn't a god or creator" it does say, "there is no reason to believe in a god/creator"

You've just recreated the no true Scotsman fallacy, which is begging the question. (Really begging the question, not raising the question, which is what most people mean when they use the phrase in error.

Atheists come in a lot of varieties. We're not a cult with associated dogma.

[Alarti0001]

I don't know where you think you read this, but it's absolutely ridiculous. There are a dozen sources that reference Jesus during his lifetime and the immediate aftermath, including non-Christian sources. Josephus and Tacitus both discussed Jesus extensively. We're as sure Jesus existed as we are sure about essentially anything that happened 2000 years ago.

It's also, again, extremely condescending to say that people believe in religion "because their parents told them to or they feel an unfulfilled need in their lives." You're less intelligent, less rational, and less fulfilled than a great number of people that believe in religion. That's not an insult, it's a fact -- and it goes for everyone else on here, too, so don't worry about it. There are verifiable geniuses, including scientific geniuses, that believe in the existence of a god. It's not because they haven't considered the notion that, hey, maybe there isn't one. It's not because their mom and dad told them to and they can't shake it after 50+ years. It's not because they can't handle the idea of a life without a god. You talk about remarkably intelligent adults like you're their all-knowing parent. Respect viewpoints other than your own.

Why do they believe, then? Because it is a logical belief. Because it is entirely rational to believe in the existence of a creator. The only life humans have ever been able to prove exists has come from other life. We've even created new life ourselves. Since all existing evidence has shown that life comes from other life, it is entirely rational to believe that there was a proto life form that birthed all the others. The image of that life form differs greatly, but that doesn't mark illogic. Many scientists believe life began on Earth with organic monomers condensing into polymers. There is no evidence for this, but they believe it -- because it had to start somewhere. What's the difference between believing in an infinitely simple organic polymer jump starting the evolution of life on Earth and an infinitely complex life form birthing the building blocks of life in the universe? Why is one more likely than the other? Because one adheres more easily to our 150 year old theory of evolution? The arrogance of humans is astounding to me sometimes. We've been kicking around this theory for a few generations in the midst of a 13+ billion year old universe and we think we've got a handle on it now. Yup, must've been ooze. Done and done. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain telling you that if we're assuming the spontaneous formation of complex polymers constituting life, then we may as well assume the spontaneous existence of any form of life. Neither has a basis in known science. We've tried to create organic polymers from monomers by replicating the early period of the Earth -- doesn't work.

Anyway, religion and god are very different. Believing that Mary was a virgin is much closer to bordering on the irrational. That's not to say it's not possible, because it is. But the canon of organized religion is often "irrational" without granting the initial conceit that a god exists in the image of that religion. Believing in a god, or a creator of some type, is very different and entirely rational. But if you're granting the rationality of a god, then you should be willing to grant the rationality of a few of the more common images of god. You don't need to grant that he was an interstellar conqueror named Xenu, but the image of a personal god is rational enough. If there were a personal god, it would be conceivable that he would try to impact mankind -- possibly via a messenger. Etc, etc. You can keep going down this road forever. But the genesis of it all is a belief in a creator -- which is objectively rational, even if it may ultimately be untrue.

Prove your claims, all i got from your was hyperbole.

[Daldolma]

Prove your claims, all i got from your was hyperbole.

Idiot, it's a belief. I'm not telling you god exists. I still haven't even stated my own beliefs. I'm saying that it is rational to believe that god exists. It is also rational to believe that there is no god or creator. You don't have to prove either viewpoint in order for them to be considered rational -- both are inherently unprovable.

If someone was telling you god definitely exists, yes -- the burden of proof would shift to him. If someone was telling you god definitely doesn't exist -- again, burden of proof is on him. Nobody is saying that here. We're talking about beliefs and the rationality of those beliefs.

[Alarti0001]

You've just recreated the no true Scotsman fallacy, which is begging the question. (Really begging the question, not raising the question, which is what most people mean when they use the phrase in error.

Atheists come in a lot of varieties. We're not a cult with associated dogma.

If atheists come in a lot of varieties it includes "cults" with dogma.

Real atheism is the lack of belief in gods. You start corrupting the term when you invoke belief that their are no gods since you can not prove a negative. At this point we have not been able to prove 100% the origin of the universe.

You were also incorrect about the existence of jesus and buddha. Buddha was a real hindu who started his own teachings on hinduism. He is revered but not a god.

The other forms of "atheism" are generally not true atheism.

[Alarti0001]

Idiot, it's a belief. I'm not telling you god exists. I still haven't even stated my own beliefs. I'm saying that it is rational to believe that god exists. It is also rational to believe that there is no god or creator. You don't have to prove either viewpoint in order for them to be considered rational -- both are inherently unprovable.

If someone was telling you god definitely exists, yes -- the burden of proof would shift to him. If someone was telling you god definitely doesn't exist -- again, burden of proof is on him. Nobody is saying that here. We're talking about beliefs and the rationality of those beliefs.

oh no you claimed facts in your rant, the burden of proof is on you to support those claims.

Idiot :)

[Daldolma]

oh no you claimed facts in your rant, the burden of proof is on you to support those claims.

Idiot :)

I used the word "fact" once to refer to the concept that there are smarter, more rational, and more fulfilled people than Alawen that believe in a god. I also referenced the fact that humans have been unable to recreate the supposed spontaneous formation of polymers given organic monomers. That is, in fact, a fact -- you can look it up yourself.

I never once claimed it is a fact that god exists or anything even remotely close to that.

I don't understand how you can spend 18 hours a day on these forums and still be functionally illiterate.

[Tecmos Deception]

It doesn't matter who wins. Everybody is going to lose.

[Lazortag]

Idiot, it's a belief. I'm not telling you god exists. I still haven't even stated my own beliefs. I'm saying that it is rational to believe that god exists. It is also rational to believe that there is no god or creator. You don't have to prove either viewpoint in order for them to be considered rational -- both are inherently unprovable.

If someone was telling you god definitely exists, yes -- the burden of proof would shift to him. If someone was telling you god definitely doesn't exist -- again, burden of proof is on him. Nobody is saying that here. We're talking about beliefs and the rationality of those beliefs.

I'm posting here against my better judgement, since it's almost impossible to have an intelligent conversation on these forums without it being ignored or derailed by trolls.

I think it's right to say that you can't prove or disprove the existence of god one way or the other. This is a red herring though, since a lot of intuitively absurd claims are impossible to prove or disprove. You could apply your same standard to the flying spaghetti monster (I know it's asinine, it's just the best example I could come up with) or any other parody religion and your logic would still hold. I think what Alarti is trying to say is that you shouldn't commit to a belief in something that you have no evidence for. This is different from saying that you should commit to a belief in the opposite. Something can be unproven but true - Fermat's last theorem was no less true 20 years ago (before it was proven) than it is now.

I still think Alarti's approach is a little too strong. I don't require evidence for every little thing that people tell me. If I come home and my wife says, "the roast is in the oven", and I don't smell it, see it, or otherwise verify her claim with my senses, I still believe what she says is true. But if someone says that the universe was created by an all-knowing, all-powerful being, I need evidence for that because of the enormity of their claim. That doesn't mean that it's not true, just that you shouldn't commit to believing in it without evidence.

[Daldolma]

But if someone says that the universe was created by an all-knowing, all-powerful being, I need evidence for that because of the enormity of their claim. That doesn't mean that it's not true, just that you shouldn't commit to believing in it without evidence.

This is agreed upon by everyone. Nobody is saying that you, or anyone else, should accept the existence of a god as universal truth. The discussion is focused on whether or not a belief in god is inherently irrational. It is not.

To that end, your comparison to a flying spaghetti monster is not an appropriate parallel. There is evidence for a creator -- it's just not overwhelming evidence. The fact that we have not been able to demonstrate evolution from the inorganic to organic polymer life is inconsistent with the current explanations for complex life on Earth. The sheer improbability of complex life emerging on Earth could be consistent with a creator. The fact that mankind is capable of reproducing life in the vein of a "creator" also can serve as evidence that life here could have been intentionally incubated rather than spontaneously generated.

Again, that evidence is NOT conclusive by any means. It could be interpreted in thousands of different ways. But there is clearly a rational niche that a creator would fill. It is well within the realm of logical possibilities that could explain life on Earth.

To secularize this discussion, let's replace god with alien. If we really wanted to, we're just about capable of cultivating life on another planet. We could certainly deploy very simple, resilient organic life forms to foreign planets and sustain their existence. So let's pretend we did that. Now add 2 billion years of evolution. Assuming no catastrophe completely wipes out all life forms (highly unlikely, but that's what happened on Earth), according to our best science, you'd very possibly have a planet with a diverse selection of species. We would be their creators. If someone told you that they believe life on Earth originated in a similar manner -- via alien life forms that intentionally or unintentionally deposited organic life forms on Earth billions of years ago -- would you consider that irrational?

I wouldn't. It's a rational belief. It might not be accurate, it might not be the most likely possibility, but it's totally rational. That could definitely have been what happened. People get too sensitive when it comes to the word 'god'. It gets jumbled with beliefs and religious orders that have taken the concept of a creator and absolutely run wild with it. That's not to comment one way or another on the validity of religion -- just to say that an acceptance of the rationality of creator origin theories is not necessarily related to any particular organized religion.

[bamzal]

but mitts got binders full of women

[Ravager]

Is the following irrational?

A man examines all available scripture, historical sites and artifacts, and conducts a sweeping review of prophecy both supposedly "passed" and that yet to occur. He personally finds that it is more likely than not that these revelations and discoveries are authentic.

No, it is entirely rational. He has what he considers a proper set of evidence and makes a decision to believe. At no point is he playing with blind faith. He has evidence that, in his view, satisfies the proper burdens. He is believing based upon his evidentiary conclusions. When you walk into a room for the first time and turn on the light switch, you expect that it is more likely than not that the lights will come on. That is a rational belief supported by your experiences and understanding of reality.

The belief is rational. Don't hide the ball by switching rational belief with faith.



There's a difference between being rational and rationalizing.

[MammothMafia]

ROFL you sound just like that moron obama


3) Obama's 4 years so far: a) stock market up 50%; b) deficit decreased (not sure on %); c) unemployment decreased significantly; d) nothing majorly bad happened, even if you dont like obama care; d) bin laden killed; e) out of iraq

a) after market crash and decline in credit rating not a valid point b) no... deficit is up 100% c) wow... really... you must be dumb. d) uhhh... housing.. thats pretty fucking bad. d) <again? another towel head has taken his place. e) we were just attacked on 911.. war not over.. dunno if u know but ppl are still FIGHTING out there.

[MammothMafia]

d) again... we still fighting out there. dunno if u know we were just attacked on 911 as well

[Ravager]

Nothing is going to improve debtwise until deficit spending is eliminated entirely. And the only candidate who proposed that was Ron Paul (who also wants to cut up the credit card which is the Federal Reserve), so, whoever's elected will still put us further in debt.

[Lucky]

Oh.... do tell me how the constitution is being eviscerated :)

Haha man youse trollin.

How about no 5th amendment due process for what it takes to be labeled an errist. Assassinations of American citizens. Renditions and torture. Warrantless wiretapping and spying breaking the 4th amendment.

I don't have time but you could write a book. C'mon real elementary. The united states is now recognized globally as one of the most aggressive police states on earth.

[Alarti0001]

Haha man youse trollin.

How about no 5th amendment due process for what it takes to be labeled an errist. Assassinations of American citizens. Renditions and torture. Warrantless wiretapping and spying breaking the 4th amendment.

I don't have time but you could write a book. C'mon real elementary. The united states is now recognized globally as one of the most aggressive police states on earth.

No not, trolling. How is the constituion being eviscerated?

[Alarti0001]

I used the word "fact" once to refer to the concept that there are smarter, more rational, and more fulfilled people than Alawen that believe in a god. I also referenced the fact that humans have been unable to recreate the supposed spontaneous formation of polymers given organic monomers. That is, in fact, a fact -- you can look it up yourself.

I never once claimed it is a fact that god exists or anything even remotely close to that.

I don't understand how you can spend 18 hours a day on these forums and still be functionally illiterate.

Prove it?

[Daldolma]

Prove it?

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

[Alawen]

I don't know where you think you read this, but it's absolutely ridiculous. There are a dozen sources that reference Jesus during his lifetime and the immediate aftermath, including non-Christian sources. Josephus and Tacitus both discussed Jesus extensively. We're as sure Jesus existed as we are sure about essentially anything that happened 2000 years ago.

It's also, again, extremely condescending to say that people believe in religion "because their parents told them to or they feel an unfulfilled need in their lives." You're less intelligent, less rational, and less fulfilled than a great number of people that believe in religion. That's not an insult, it's a fact -- and it goes for everyone else on here, too, so don't worry about it. There are verifiable geniuses, including scientific geniuses, that believe in the existence of a god. It's not because they haven't considered the notion that, hey, maybe there isn't one. It's not because their mom and dad told them to and they can't shake it after 50+ years. It's not because they can't handle the idea of a life without a god. You talk about remarkably intelligent adults like you're their all-knowing parent. Respect viewpoints other than your own.

Why do they believe, then? Because it is a logical belief. Because it is entirely rational to believe in the existence of a creator. The only life humans have ever been able to prove exists has come from other life. We've even created new life ourselves. Since all existing evidence has shown that life comes from other life, it is entirely rational to believe that there was a proto life form that birthed all the others. The image of that life form differs greatly, but that doesn't mark illogic. Many scientists believe life began on Earth with organic monomers condensing into polymers. There is no evidence for this, but they believe it -- because it had to start somewhere. What's the difference between believing in an infinitely simple organic polymer jump starting the evolution of life on Earth and an infinitely complex life form birthing the building blocks of life in the universe? Why is one more likely than the other? Because one adheres more easily to our 150 year old theory of evolution? The arrogance of humans is astounding to me sometimes. We've been kicking around this theory for a few generations in the midst of a 13+ billion year old universe and we think we've got a handle on it now. Yup, must've been ooze. Done and done. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain telling you that if we're assuming the spontaneous formation of complex polymers constituting life, then we may as well assume the spontaneous existence of any form of life. Neither has a basis in known science. We've tried to create organic polymers from monomers by replicating the early period of the Earth -- doesn't work.

Anyway, religion and god are very different. Believing that Mary was a virgin is much closer to bordering on the irrational. That's not to say it's not possible, because it is. But the canon of organized religion is often "irrational" without granting the initial conceit that a god exists in the image of that religion. Believing in a god, or a creator of some type, is very different and entirely rational. But if you're granting the rationality of a god, then you should be willing to grant the rationality of a few of the more common images of god. You don't need to grant that he was an interstellar conqueror named Xenu, but the image of a personal god is rational enough. If there were a personal god, it would be conceivable that he would try to impact mankind -- possibly via a messenger. Etc, etc. You can keep going down this road forever. But the genesis of it all is a belief in a creator -- which is objectively rational, even if it may ultimately be untrue.

Josephus wrote well after the supposed life and death of Jesus Christ and Tacitus wrote more than a generation later. Moreover, possibilities for introducing later artifacts into both texts such as interpolation are widely disputed even among Christian Bible scholars! Your proof is just as weak as trying to cite the Bible itself. Please, bring up the shroud, I beg you!

I presented my opinion on why people follow religions, and I prefaced it by saying "it seems." There is nothing fallacious in my statements. Yours, however, are defensive and full of supposition. You attempt to reinforce those beliefs by proclaiming that bigger, smarter, faster people also have those beliefs, which is an example of both false authority and ad populum. It doesn't mean shit if you can find an example of a Nobel-winning scientist who goes to church. There are any number of reasons to espouse belief besides actually believing in Dyēus ph2ter the sky god.

[Alawen]

If atheists come in a lot of varieties it includes "cults" with dogma.

Real atheism is the lack of belief in gods. You start corrupting the term when you invoke belief that their are no gods since you can not prove a negative. At this point we have not been able to prove 100% the origin of the universe.

You were also incorrect about the existence of jesus and buddha. Buddha was a real hindu who started his own teachings on hinduism. He is revered but not a god.

The other forms of "atheism" are generally not true atheism.

Look it up. Search for historicity on any of those religious figures. They completely fall apart. No artifacts, no birth records, nothing.

In sharp contrast, we know exactly where Santa Claus was born, where he lived, where he died, where he died, where he was buried, where he was moved to, and where his mortal remains are now. I'm going to visit Santa's grave some day.

[Humerox]

No not, trolling. How is the constituion being eviscerated?

You're very smart. How can you say it's not, especially since 9/11? It's a given that the US has been moving toward fascism for a long time, and that the constitution and individual rights have been bled to death. Maybe not an evisceration, but surely a hemorrhage.

[Alarti0001]

You're very smart. How can you say it's not, especially since 9/11? It's a given that the US has been moving toward fascism for a long time, and that the constitution and individual rights have been bled to death. Maybe not an evisceration, but surely a hemorrhage.

The constitution has been ammended many times before?

[Alarti0001]

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

How is a wiki page about someones' .... belief structure..... proof?

[Alarti0001]

Look it up. Search for historicity on any of those religious figures. They completely fall apart. No artifacts, no birth records, nothing.

In sharp contrast, we know exactly where Santa Claus was born, where he lived, where he died, where he died, where he was buried, where he was moved to, and where his mortal remains are now. I'm going to visit Santa's grave some day.

Do you claim no one named Siddharta Buddha or Jesus Christ existed in those times? There is no need to prove buddha's existence he isnt a transcendent deity.

[Humerox]

The constitution has been ammended many times before?

Who needs amendments when you have executive agreements and international treaties?

[Alawen]

Do you claim no one named Siddharta Buddha or Jesus Christ existed in those times? There is no need to prove buddha's existence he isnt a transcendent deity.

No, I'm not trying to prove a negative. I'm saying there is no tangible evidence that either of them ever existed. Siddhartha was supposedly a prince, too, yet nothing--no inscriptions, no contemporary statues, no records. Muhammad has the same situation, despite being contemporary to Santa!

[Alarti0001]

Who needs amendments when you have executive agreements and international treaties?

Oooo give some examples !


@ Alawen, there are no records for the vast majority of people who existed. If he was a prince who knows, that is the story, but jesus walked on water too so meh.

The point is moot esp since it has nothing to do with Mitt Romney wearing special underwear to protect him from the lake of fire.

[Alawen]

Oooo give some examples !


@ Alawen, there are no records for the vast majority of people who existed. If he was a prince who knows, that is the story, but jesus walked on water too so meh.

The point is moot esp since it has nothing to do with Mitt Romney wearing special underwear to protect him from the lake of fire.

That's what I think is so fascinating! This whole thread got derailed in large part because no one wants to deal with the fact that Mormonism is even more whack than more conventional Christians!

[Humerox]

Oooo give some examples!

You really make me wanna work, doncha? lol.

Well...read THIS (http://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/9780472116874-ch1.pdf) first.

Then, read THIS (http://www.westernjournalism.com/obama-could-nullify-the-2nd-amendment/).

Hope that clears it up for ya.

;)

[Humerox]

That's what I think is so fascinating! This whole thread got derailed in large part because no one wants to deal with the fact that Mormonism is even more whack than more conventional Christians!

I brought it up! Batshit crazy versus less batshit crazy is what my argument was.

[Ravager]

That's what I think is so fascinating! This whole thread got derailed in large part because no one wants to deal with the fact that Mormonism is even more whack than more conventional Christians!

Seems kind of idiotic to argue which idiotic idea is more idiotic than the other.

[mgellan]

I'm Canadian actually and yea, most of us do think republicans are bat shit insane

/agree

[sulious]

Are we forgetting that Romney destroyed the everloving shit out of Obama in the 1st debate?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_GjFMzVT7c


No shampoo is better...

[mgellan]

This was more about the Alarti dumbfuck saying anyone who has ever believed in a God is some irrational nutcase whose ideas we should completely object so I threw out Ben Franklin and Einstein but obviously you can go down the list of millions of these kind of examples. Positive atheism is as blind as a faith.

Belief in God is a cultural thing generally propogated to kids by parents. A mind virus, if you will. The fact that some smart people (eg you forgot Newton, Leonardo, etc.) does not provide positive proof of the existence of God, it just means smart people can as readily compartmentalize bat-shit crazy ideas as not so smart people. People that believe in God in the face of absolutely zero evidence have simply stuck their belief in the "believe without evidence" bucket even if the same people thing belief in UFOs, Bigfoot and Santa Clause are stupid.

Read "The Believing Brain" By Michael Shermer, "Demon Haunted World" by Carl Sagan and similar books if you want to see what the other side is saying. If not, try to snatch a breath occasionally while your head is shoved up your ass.

Regards,
Mg

[Ravager]

No shampoo is better...

Don't fall for the sham. Buy real poo.

[Daldolma]

Josephus wrote well after the supposed life and death of Jesus Christ and Tacitus wrote more than a generation later. Moreover, possibilities for introducing later artifacts into both texts such as interpolation are widely disputed even among Christian Bible scholars! Your proof is just as weak as trying to cite the Bible itself. Please, bring up the shroud, I beg you!

Lol. You are ignorant. This isn't a matter of shrouds and superstition. It was 2000 years ago -- they didn't have an obituaries section in the local magazine. You have a half a dozen sources from within 50-100 years of Jesus' life speaking about him as a historical figure and confirming some of the same basic facts of his life and death -- including non-Christian scholars. There's more proof that Jesus existed than there is proof that Shakespeare actually wrote the work credited to him, and Shakespeare isn't even 500 years old yet. And for the record, secular scholars widely agree that Jesus did exist (and that Shakespeare wrote the works credited to him).

This is a direct line from Wikipedia: Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[5][6][7][8] and biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[9][10][11]

You're holding Jesus' existence to a standard that is completely out of touch with the context of the period. What would it take to convince you he existed? A photograph? Almost everything we know about antiquity is based on third person accounts from people that weren't alive when the supposed events took place. For Jesus, there are a plethora of references to him from a variety of sources, including highly reliable non-Christian authors that wrote in the immediate historical aftermath (less than 100 years) after his death.

Unless you also refute basically everything researchers have concluded regarding antiquity, including the very existence of certain famous authors, poets, and emperors, there is more than enough evidence to conclusively say that Jesus did live.

[mgellan]

Ben Franklin discovered electricity and you just blow it off

Shut up you fucking moran

Nice descent into ad hominum. "Well... uh... oh yeah, well you suck!" Well played sir.

Regards,
Mg

[mgellan]

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed

So what? So someone named Jesus existed, doesn't demonstrate that a single word in the Bible is true... in fact some of it is true, but that doesn't infer that a single supernatural claim made in the book is true. You can't get to a claim of the truth of an entire book by claiming one of the characters was based on a real life figure any more than you can claim because New York City exists, so must Spiderman.

Regards,
Mg

[Ravager]

Spider-Man. Show some god damned respect for Christ's sake.

[Daldolma]

Belief in God is a cultural thing generally propogated to kids by parents. A mind virus, if you will. The fact that some smart people (eg you forgot Newton, Leonardo, etc.) does not provide positive proof of the existence of God, it just means smart people can as readily compartmentalize bat-shit crazy ideas as not so smart people. People that believe in God in the face of absolutely zero evidence have simply stuck their belief in the "believe without evidence" bucket even if the same people thing belief in UFOs, Bigfoot and Santa Clause are stupid.

Read "The Believing Brain" By Michael Shermer, "Demon Haunted World" by Carl Sagan and similar books if you want to see what the other side is saying. If not, try to snatch a breath occasionally while your head is shoved up your ass.

Regards,
Mg

See, this is the problem with atheism. You have some retard on a gaming forum that can't get through a paragraph without a typo trying to explain that Newton, Da Vinci, and a good number of the greatest thinkers in the history of mankind are "bat-shit crazy" with their heads shoved up their ass, all the while explaining that a guy who was a door-to-door evangelist 30 years ago has all the answers.

Yes, Michael Shermer was a door to door, born again evangelist until ~1980. He went from one of the retards knocking on your door to tell you about the glory of Jesus to the founder of Skeptic magazine in 12 years. And he's your first reference? Really?

Yeah, that's totally the guy to set Isaac Newton straight.

[Daldolma]

So what? So someone named Jesus existed, doesn't demonstrate that a single word in the Bible is true... in fact some of it is true, but that doesn't infer that a single supernatural claim made in the book is true. You can't get to a claim of the truth of an entire book by claiming one of the characters was based on a real life figure any more than you can claim because New York City exists, so must Spiderman.

Regards,
Mg

Nobody is talking about the Bible. Alawen denied the historical existence of Jesus. He was incorrect.

[Hailto]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/157817/election-2012-likely-voters-trial-heat-obama-romney.aspx

[Frieza_Prexus]

Just had to re-read the Drudge report headline like 4 times. For a moment there, I thought the electoral dick-waving was about to become quite literal.

[Alarti0001]

You really make me wanna work, doncha? lol.

Well...read THIS (http://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/9780472116874-ch1.pdf) first.

Then, read THIS (http://www.westernjournalism.com/obama-could-nullify-the-2nd-amendment/).

Hope that clears it up for ya.

;)

Well what i garnered from the first article was that Congress as set up by the constitution is inherently broken, allowing for members to vote based on party lines and for re-election purposes.

The second article does not infringe on the right to bear arms. The 2nd amendment does not say you have the right to bear arms "in secret".

[Alarti0001]

Lol. You are ignorant. This isn't a matter of shrouds and superstition. It was 2000 years ago -- they didn't have an obituaries section in the local magazine. You have a half a dozen sources from within 50-100 years of Jesus' life speaking about him as a historical figure and confirming some of the same basic facts of his life and death -- including non-Christian scholars. There's more proof that Jesus existed than there is proof that Shakespeare actually wrote the work credited to him, and Shakespeare isn't even 500 years old yet. And for the record, secular scholars widely agree that Jesus did exist (and that Shakespeare wrote the works credited to him).

This is a direct line from Wikipedia: Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[5][6][7][8] and biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[9][10][11]

You're holding Jesus' existence to a standard that is completely out of touch with the context of the period. What would it take to convince you he existed? A photograph? Almost everything we know about antiquity is based on third person accounts from people that weren't alive when the supposed events took place. For Jesus, there are a plethora of references to him from a variety of sources, including highly reliable non-Christian authors that wrote in the immediate historical aftermath (less than 100 years) after his death.

Unless you also refute basically everything researchers have concluded regarding antiquity, including the very existence of certain famous authors, poets, and emperors, there is more than enough evidence to conclusively say that Jesus did live.

There is also alot of "proof by your description" that claims Mohammad existed and was the final prophet of god and that jesus was not the son.

?Derp

[Nirgon]

This just in people who receive food stamps also work hard! They just work hard making minimum wage, cleaning toilets and shit, and not sitting behind a computer screen.

Let's talk about how hard you have to try in school (at something applicable no less) to get there.

Some people just pay for their decisions down the road. I'm totally fine with that.

[Alawen]

Lol. You are ignorant. This isn't a matter of shrouds and superstition. It was 2000 years ago -- they didn't have an obituaries section in the local magazine. You have a half a dozen sources from within 50-100 years of Jesus' life speaking about him as a historical figure and confirming some of the same basic facts of his life and death -- including non-Christian scholars. There's more proof that Jesus existed than there is proof that Shakespeare actually wrote the work credited to him, and Shakespeare isn't even 500 years old yet. And for the record, secular scholars widely agree that Jesus did exist (and that Shakespeare wrote the works credited to him).

This is a direct line from Wikipedia: Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[5][6][7][8] and biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[9][10][11]

You're holding Jesus' existence to a standard that is completely out of touch with the context of the period. What would it take to convince you he existed? A photograph? Almost everything we know about antiquity is based on third person accounts from people that weren't alive when the supposed events took place. For Jesus, there are a plethora of references to him from a variety of sources, including highly reliable non-Christian authors that wrote in the immediate historical aftermath (less than 100 years) after his death.

Unless you also refute basically everything researchers have concluded regarding antiquity, including the very existence of certain famous authors, poets, and emperors, there is more than enough evidence to conclusively say that Jesus did live.

Your pejorative aside, I'm at least knowledgeable enough to understand what a primary source is. You might want to read them before quoting them as fact. Citation number six is Robert M. Price, who also doubts the existence of a historical Christ.

One of us is definitely talking out his ass and resorting to Wiki and vague references to geniuses who believe in God to back up his point. This is the most disappointing series of posts I've ever seen from you. If I had to guess, I'd say you are so emotionally attached to the existence of God that you don't want these topics discussed.

[Alawen]

Let's talk about how hard you have to try in school (at something applicable no less) to get there.

Some people just pay for their decisions down the road. I'm totally fine with that.

Spoken like a true child of privilege. It's obviously the poor children of poor parents who bring poor nutrition, bad schools, lack of health care, and crime-ridden neighborhoods on themselves. Little bastards have it coming.

[Daldolma]

There is also alot of "proof by your description" that claims Mohammad existed and was the final prophet of god and that jesus was not the son.

?Derp

No, there isn't.

Religious texts that discuss things like god and Jesus' (or Mohammad's) relationship to a god are not "proof". They're religious texts. You can believe or not. There is no proof that Jesus was the son of a god any more than there is evidence that Mohammad was the final prophet. That isn't covered by what we're discussing.

There is, however, a plethora of evidence describing Jesus and his life (and death), from a variety of both religious and secular sources in close historical proximity to Jesus. Many of the basic facts and accounts are corroborated by multiple authors.

I'm not as familiar with Mohammad, to be honest. But I'm not discussing religious aspects. I'm discussing whether or not the person in question existed. In the case of Jesus, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that he did -- relatively speaking, of course.

[mgellan]

See, this is the problem with atheism. You have some retard on a gaming forum that can't get through a paragraph without a typo trying to explain that Newton, Da Vinci, and a good number of the greatest thinkers in the history of mankind are "bat-shit crazy" with their heads shoved up their ass, all the while explaining that a guy who was a door-to-door evangelist 30 years ago has all the answers.

Yes, Michael Shermer was a door to door, born again evangelist until ~1980. He went from one of the retards knocking on your door to tell you about the glory of Jesus to the founder of Skeptic magazine in 12 years. And he's your first reference? Really?

Yeah, that's totally the guy to set Isaac Newton straight.

I'm not a retard, my mom had me tested. And you're not worth editing for.

He obviously got better, went to school, got a degree in Psychology, and started making perfect sense. Amazing how education destroys religiousity.

Why don't you stop the ad hominum attacks and try attacking his ideas? Oh, you've never bothered to read his book? The Bible is good enough for you? Too bad.

Look at it this way - until very recently (and how safe it is to come out of the closet as an atheist is today is debatable) you could be burned, tortured, jailed, or at very least ostracised and shunned for not being the most fervant religious drone possible. So it makes it pretty hard to guage the religiosity of smart people until the 1800s.

Regards,
Mg

[mgellan]

Many of the basic facts and accounts are corroborated by multiple authors.

No they weren't, the existence of a historical Jesus outside scripture (which are obviously biased) can be inferred but it's a huge exaggeration to say many of the basic facts and accounts are colloborated. They're not.

Regards,
Mg

[azeth]

FYI you're able to verify your eligiblity for foodstamps easily online, per state.

I invite anyone who considers themselves borderline low-income to check whether they fit the criteria.

spoiler alert: if you don't have kids, you don't qualify.

It's not as available and easy as it sounds. Before I started working after school, my mom had applied for them and was rejected. She nets approximately $20,000. Fortunately I'm able to help her out now, and I'm very thankful for that.

[mgellan]

So it makes it pretty hard to guage the religiosity of smart people until the 1800s.

And oh by the way it doesn't fucking matter anyways, an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy that proves nothing.

Regards,
Mg

[Daldolma]

Your pejorative aside, I'm at least knowledgeable enough to understand what a primary source is. You might want to read them before quoting them as fact. Citation number six is Robert M. Price, who also doubts the existence of a historical Christ.

One of us is definitely talking out his ass and resorting to Wiki and vague references to geniuses who believe in God to back up his point. This is the most disappointing series of posts I've ever seen from you. If I had to guess, I'd say you are so emotionally attached to the existence of God that you don't want these topics discussed.

Robert M. Price's standard of evidence is as ridiculous as yours. According to him (yes, via wikipedia), "unless someone discovers his diary or his skeleton, we'll never know" if he existed. Does this mean that every historical figure for which we lack an autobiography or a skeleton is potentially the stuff of myth? How patently absurd.

And again, you're evading the underlying point. Relative to other historical figures that we have widely accepted as having existed, there is a plethora of evidence that Jesus existed. For instance, there is far more of a case that Jesus existed than Homer. That is just one example of thousands. Why do you continue to ignore the general consensus of actual scholars on the subject? Is it really me that is biased?

And I have no issue with the topics being discussed, and as a matter of fact, the topic we're discussing is wholly unrelated to the existence of any god. We are discussing whether Jesus was a historical or mythical figure. We're not getting into the validity of his supposed supernatural acts, or his divine nature.

You see a bias that isn't there. I'm not a Christian. Whether Jesus existed or not is wholly immaterial to my life. I'm merely perturbed by how closed-minded and condescending atheists can be as it relates to subjects that are obviously beyond human understanding at the moment. You ask for proof or evidence to justify a belief in a god, then you dismiss mounds of evidence that support the historical existence of Jesus. The two matters are NOT related -- but because of your beliefs re: a god, you can't even budge on whether or not Jesus existed.

There is no way to prove any god exists. There is no way to prove no god exists. The notion of a creator -- of life, of the universe, of essentially anything -- is, on its face, rational. That creator could be a god or an extraterrestrial. It could be personal and benevolent or a force that is not even sentient by our current understanding of the term. Or there could be no creator, no god, and the beginnings of the universe merely too complex to understand at present. All possible, all rational. Greeting any of those possibilities with hostility is irrational.

[Daldolma]

He obviously got better, went to school, got a degree in Psychology, and started making perfect sense. Amazing how education destroys religiousity.

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.

[Alawen]

Congratulations, sir. You have learned the hard lesson of researching backward to the primary sources of your references. You introduced Robert Price into this discussion, not me. If you check your other primary sources, every one of them uses a qualifier. The Wiki entry is misleading at best. Personally, I would call the phrasing disingenuous; it is not representative of the statements made by the experts it references.

I don't recall asking for any such things. You're projecting onto me a generic argument you've apparently had with one or more atheists in the past. I doubted the historicity of Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad. You took issue with that. You've gone on several rants full of ad hominem cuts. Your posts on this topic are rife with insults and both formal and informal logical fallacies.

It's not me that has a big issue here. I actually think religion is very beneficial. I think it minimizes a lot of behavior that would be disadvantageous to me and the people I care about. It also provides tremendous opportunities in social networking. I know the Bible well enough to quote from memory and many people in my personal life would swear to you that I am a devout Christian. I might even be able to orate Pascal's Wager with a straight face.

Nah, I'm not that good of an actor.

[Nirgon]

Spoken like a true child of privilege.

No, I could have definitely fucked up in school. Trust me, I did for a year at college and paid for it through the nose making up the skills in my computer science classes.

Meanwhile, other bumfucks I knew (and partied with) never woke up and smelled the coffee. They have no real skills but with my help nailed down some Mr. Fixit computer jobs after 2 years of not being able to find one. One still boozes all his money away and will sit at about 40k a year until he decides to get serious and do something meaningful. The other? VMware certified and making as much as me -- no college degree, just tech certs.

I don't need to pay for people who either can't get with the program or choose to take the "oh I can never improve my mess of a life, you don't know what it's like!" crowd. There's people who have sleepless hour jobs out there and they should only be pulling their own weight.

Not to mention kids (and even parents sometimes) in the shittiest demographics work their asses off to ensure bullying of kids in school to keep their grades down so they can continue to complain/get hand outs and keep the bar down.

[Daldolma]

No they weren't, the existence of a historical Jesus outside scripture (which are obviously biased) can be inferred but it's a huge exaggeration to say many of the basic facts and accounts are colloborated. They're not.

Regards,
Mg

Yes, they are. But we're probably talking about different facts and accounts, because when it comes to religious figures, some of you see red.

I am talking about Jesus having existed, having been generally revered by Christians, and having been crucified. Nothing religious, nothing supernatural. Just the basic outlines of him as a historical figure. Those accounts were corroborated by Tacitus (a Roman, non-Christian historian), and to a lesser extent, Josephus. You also can't entirely discount scripture. You can set aside the supernatural details, but you should at least account for the fact that the writings identify Jesus as having existed. They are not sufficient on their own to prove that he did because they are obviously biased, but taken together with an unbiased and highly reliable third source, you have a historical figure as fleshed out as nearly any.

[Daldolma]

Congratulations, sir. You have learned the hard lesson of researching backward to the primary sources of your references. You introduced Robert Price into this discussion, not me. If you check your other primary sources, every one of them uses a qualifier. The Wiki entry is misleading at best. Personally, I would call the phrasing disingenuous; it is not representative of the statements made by the experts it references.

I don't recall asking for any such things. You're projecting onto me a generic argument you've apparently had with one or more atheists in the past. I doubted the historicity of Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad. You took issue with that. You've gone on several rants full of ad hominem cuts. Your posts on this topic are rife with insults and both formal and informal logical fallacies.

It's not me that has a big issue here. I actually think religion is very beneficial. I think it minimizes a lot of behavior that would be disadvantageous to me and the people I care about. It also provides tremendous opportunities in social networking. I know the Bible well enough to quote from memory and many people in my personal life would swear to you that I am a devout Christian. I might even be able to orate Pascal's Wager with a straight face.

Nah, I'm not that good of an actor.

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"

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."

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."

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"

The Gospels and Jesus by Graham Stanton, 1989 ISBN 0192132415 Oxford University Press, page 145 states : "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed".

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

It's not Wikipedia, me, or a plethora of scholars that are being disingenuous. It's you. So again, if you were the unbiased evaluator you claim to be, why do you continue to disregard the overwhelming evidence and general consensus of scholars?

[Alarti0001]

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"

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."

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."

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"

The Gospels and Jesus by Graham Stanton, 1989 ISBN 0192132415 Oxford University Press, page 145 states : "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed".

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

It's not Wikipedia, me, or a plethora of scholars that are being disingenuous. It's you. So again, if you were the unbiased evaluator you claim to be, why do you continue to disregard the overwhelming evidence and general consensus of scholars?

They are putting out the supposition that he existed not the fact that he did. They are saying basically, "in my informed opinion Jesus did exist".

Stop derpin'

[Daldolma]

They are putting out the supposition that he existed not the fact that he did. They are saying basically, "in my informed opinion Jesus did exist".

Stop derpin'

Holy shit you can't possibly be this stupid.

"Jesus certainly existed".

You're either borderline retarded or the least entertaining troll in P99 history.

[stonez138]

I'm saying there is no tangible evidence that either of them ever existed.

<a href="http://photobucket.com/images/house%20of%20hazrat%20haleema%20%28rz%29%20where%2 0prophet%20muhammad%20%28saw%29%20lived%20the%20fi rst%204%20years%20of%20his%20life" target="_blank"><img src="http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa60/kuliwarnet/Private/n71778625607_4206534_7549.jpg" border="0" alt="House of Hazrat Haleema (RZ) where Prophet Muhammad (SAW) lived the first 4 years of his life. Pictures, Images and Photos"/></a>

There is actually A LOT of tangible evidence Muhammad existed. What do you want a dna sample?

[Lucky]

There is plenty of evidence Jesus existed.

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

[Hitchens]

There is not a valid reason to doubt the historical existence of a human male from Galilee named Jesus who was eventually crucified by Pilate. Anything beyond that is perfectly fair game.

[Alarti0001]

Holy shit you can't possibly be this stupid.

"Jesus certainly existed".

You're either borderline retarded or the least entertaining troll in P99 history.

Well if that guys makes a statement it has to be true right? His statement is an opinion.
I don't doubt Jesus existed as a person, I do doubt that anyone can prove it.

[Daldolma]

There is not a valid reason to doubt the historical existence of a human male from Galilee named Jesus who was eventually crucified by Pilate. Anything beyond that is perfectly fair game.

Agreed.

[Ravager]

It's questionable whether any of you exist based on the evidence present. Hell, how do I know that Alarti is Alarti and not really George Clooney?

[Reiker000]

Jesus' existence is more supported than Alarti's.

Anyways why all yall nerds fighting in rnf when
http://i49.tinypic.com/15n7hmr.jpg

[Tanthallas]

Jesus' existence is more supported than Alarti's.

win

[Alarti0001]

It's questionable whether any of you exist based on the evidence present. Hell, how do I know that Alarti is Alarti and not really George Clooney?

I can produce a birth certificate, DNA samples etc.

[Ravager]

No thanks, Mr. Clooney. Conjecture will be enough.

[Knuckle]

Are we forgetting that neither candidate is going to get shit done in the next 4 years like the last?

[Lucky]

oh theyll get shit done, dont u worry


is obama the only nobel peace winner with a kill list??

[Lucky]

nvm obamas in the company of Yasser Arafat on that 1

[Prince]

vote for ROCKY ANDERSON

http://www.voterocky.org/
http://www.voterocky.org/http://www.voterocky.org/http://www.voterocky.org/http://www.voterocky.org/http://www.voterocky.org/http://www.voterocky.org/http://www.voterocky.org/http://www.voterocky.org/http://www.voterocky.org/

[Splorf22]

How anyone can tell the difference between Obama and Romney is anyone's guess. Lets see:

Drone strikes: Obama has killed ~2500 people in Pakistan, about 1/3 of which are civilians. 75% of Pakistanis now consider the US a 'national enemy', not too surprising when a country drops bombs on you. Romney 'Drone strikes are are great, the Pakistanis love them'.

Banks: Obama and Bernanke gave $14 trillion to bail out Wall Street's bonuses leading to an even too-bigger-to-fail monstrosity of a financial sector that we have now. Romney won't change anything there; the banks are his biggest donors and the WSJ calls him R-money.

Deficit: Obama spent more money that he didn't have than any US president in history except maybe King Bush II. Romney is going to cut taxes on everyone without reducing spending or increasing the deficit . . . and refuses to say how.

Civil Liberties: Obama passed the NDAA which blatantly violates the due process guarantees of the Bill of Rights. It was recently struck down as unconstitutional by a federal judge, and the government is appealing. Because, how can they fight the war on terror if they need evidence to put people in prison? Meanwhile, the first google hit for "Romney NDAA" is him giving a speech supporting it.

Not only am I disgusted with the showing of our government over the past 12 years or so, I have no way to do anything about it this november.

[Ahldagor]

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


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



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism
for fun there

[Ahldagor]

Politic part of the thread...don't matter who you vote for cause you're going to wake up the next day and do whatever it is that you do as if nothing ever happened. Political theater is fun.

[Ahldagor]

and thank you all for allowing me to kill an hour at work while taking minute percentages of your paid taxes if applicable. /thank

[Alawen]

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"

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."

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."

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"

The Gospels and Jesus by Graham Stanton, 1989 ISBN 0192132415 Oxford University Press, page 145 states : "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed".

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

It's not Wikipedia, me, or a plethora of scholars that are being disingenuous. It's you. So again, if you were the unbiased evaluator you claim to be, why do you continue to disregard the overwhelming evidence and general consensus of scholars?

You keep claiming mountains of evidence, when really all that exists are the gospels, Flavius Josephus and Tacitus. Here's the Testimonium Flavianum from Antiquities of the Jews Book 18:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and as a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvellous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

Flavius Josephus was an orthodox Jew. His father was a rabbi and his mother was Hebrew royalty. This is a guy who led Jews in the First Jewish-Roman War. Jesus, really Yeshua, was essentially executed for heresy. Do you believe for even one minute that passage wasn't heavily modified by Christian writers? I certainly do not and despite the radical Christian skew of the Wikipedia article, it is not hard to find a slew of antiquities academics who doubt along with me. Many of them have tried to reconstruct the passage. There is general consensus that what I posted is not the original text and at least some of it is later insertion. It is not much of a stretch that the entire passage is an insertion.

There's a short passage in Antiquities as well; it's not as blatantly not written by Josephus but given the major passage, it's not hard to doubt its authenticity.

Here's the passage from Cornelius Tacitus in Annals (heh):

...derived their name and origin from Christ, who, in the reign of Tiberius, had suffered death by the sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate...

There's no clear evidence of Christian editing here, but it's certainly possible. It's also not obvious if Tacitus is revealing entries from Roman records or repeating what Christians told him. There is strong reason to believe the latter as the passage has to serious errors. Pontius Pilate, who is documented in Roman records, was a prefect, not a procurator. Furthermore, Roman records would have given Jesus' surname, not his assumed religious title.

And that's it. That's your mountains of evidence. If you find reason to doubt either of those entries, which I obviously do, you're reduced back to the bible. None of these documents are contemporary to the alleged life of Christ. They all follow by at least decades. Apparently no one, not a Jew, not a Roman, saw fit to document miracles and large gatherings. In contrast, the life of John the Baptist is well-documented. Despite your ridiculous claims that Jesus' existence is rock solid, it's very flimsy. This is all there is.

But sure, paint me as a lunatic for being a rational critical thinker who understands primary sources and actually looks them up instead of linking Wikipedia pages that I just read for the first time.

Simpleton.

[Alawen]

I made multiple typos and I just don't give a fuck if you believe that Jesus lived or that God exists. It's honestly better for me if you do. Have a nice life.

[hatelore bloodlust]

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.

[hatelore bloodlust]

You know. I work in office buildings. Since Obama has been in office, you have any idea how many black owners with Obama pictures all over there office I had to lock out and eventually sell there stuff for pennies on the dollar because they could not pay there monthly rent?

I feel bad, that they are disillusioned by this guy and think they will help there people. Black unemployment for males in the 19-32 age bracket are what 14%? The highest they have ever been, If I was black I would be downright pissed off and I would felt VERY let down for the job this guy has done.

[hatelore bloodlust]

Geesh, so many typos.

[Lucky]

http://thebiglead.fantasysportsven.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/rg3-td-10-14-12.gif

[hatelore bloodlust]

And I truly do not see Obama winning this upcoming Election. The college kids that had there professors lie to them to vote for Obama will not be coming out in the numbers they did in 2008 to vote for this clown. How can they? They are either occupied as a occupooper, Unable to repay there student loans or still looking for a decent job with that masters degree they had to sacrifice there soul to get.

The Wally-World moms who voted for him in 2008 thinking he would help this country will not turn out either, They can't even afford to buy a box of Cheezits for there poor tot because of this horrid economy.

And the other democrats that got out to vote for him last time , they feel lied to and let down. They sure won't vote for Romney because of there convictions, but they will not be voting for Obama. So I say to them, stay home. Please. Help out by NOT voting so this assclown can be ran out of office and then imprisoned for all the lies and scandals he put the American people through.

[Reiker000]

You know. I work in office buildings. Since Obama has been in office, you have any idea how many black owners with Obama pictures all over there office I had to lock out and eventually sell there stuff for pennies on the dollar because they could not pay there monthly rent?

I feel bad, that they are disillusioned by this guy and think they will help there people. Black unemployment for males in the 19-32 age bracket are what 14%? The highest they have ever been, If I was black I would be downright pissed off and I would felt VERY let down for the job this guy has done.

I know, WHY IS OBAMA FIRING ALL THE BLACK PEOPLE?!?! IMPEACH HIM NOW!

[hatelore bloodlust]

I am not saying he is firing all the black people. But he damn sure is NOT helping them, or any other American in my honest opinion...Backed up by facts.

[hatelore bloodlust]

6 month moratorium on drilling in the gulf, sure didn't help the gulf coast in any way. And now, the EPA regulations that were set in place after that oil spill, make it to where a lot of them oil rigs that were there before can't even go back to work. Does that help gas prices? Hell no. Imagine if you made 7.50 an hour and you had to work 1 hour for 2 gallons of gas to put in your g-ride. That would surely suck! What has he done to try to lower gas prices, what has he tried to initiate on that subject? Jack fuckin shit. Period.

Overall, There is really nothing to defend or try to argue when it comes to Obama, Obama has proven that he sucks monkey balls, time and time again.

[Reiker000]

No one's listening to you because you don't know what you're talking about. For one, nothing that you said has any effect on gas prices.

[hatelore bloodlust]

Umm are you slow? A 6 month moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico had no effect on gas prices? LOL. More like, you don't know what you are talking about. And what I posted were facts dude, spin the shit how you wan't but the bottom line is, Obama has produced nothing but bad results as President of the Unites States.

[hatelore bloodlust]

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.

[Splorf22]

No one's listening to you because you don't know what you're talking about. For one, nothing that you said has any effect on gas prices.

Bernanke has had a huge effect on oil prices.

[Lexical]

I am not saying he is firing all the black people. But he damn sure is NOT helping them, or any other American in my honest opinion...Backed up by facts.

Listen, dipshit, can I call you dipshit? Anyway dipshit, you have no idea what you are talking about. Saying that you somehow in your rant backed anything up with facts is completely stupid. I know this may come as a shock to you but saying "x = suck" isn't some mathemagical statement that makes anything that you are saying remotely true.

Anywho, I don't really have time to educate you fully so I will only show you how dumb on the issue you keep pressing: that gas prices sky rocketed because of Obama's policy. Yes, what Romney said was true, gas prices did dramatically increase since Obama took office. But let's take a look at the whole picture (do you like how I am posting reliable sources to back up my claims? These are actual facts. Just something you should have picked up in middle school)

http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/gas-prices-CPI-percent-changes-year.jpg

Here we see the gas prices that were throughout the Bush presidency. As you can see, the gas prices while he was in office. But here is a good question, what do you see happen right around the 2008 mark? Well that is when Obama took office but it seems a little unfair to say that because he started office with extremely low gas prices(which was because of an economic bubble, but I really don't have time to try and educate you on even the most basic of macroeconomic principles so I will just stick to fact checking).

Anywho, here is an aggregate of gas prices adjusted with inflation that is between 1920 to 2012.
http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/gas-prices-inflation-adjusted.jpg

As we see again, throughout Bush's presidency we see a steep incline in the price of gas and then a steep drop and then the chart is too spread out to deem anything meaningful, but I want to show you that the prices were generally the same as when Bush was in office vs when Obama was in office. But let's zoom in shall we?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-v4dXXMBhCpg/T0t4Jc3ggKI/AAAAAAAACec/KZ_pRv6bjOM/s1600/Screen+shot+2012-02-27+at+7.32.46+AM.png

Do you see those jack knifing prices during Bush's presidency whose economic ideas are basically Romney's? Yeah that is a typical display of a weak economy (some macro theory for you). Now we see Obama take office and we see a jack knife rise in prices, well as a little quiz, I will let you look into what happened with the random freefall in gas prices and why the sharp rise is only natural after such things happen :)

Anywho, I digress, we see stable gas prices for a long time until what appears to be April 2010 there is a steep increase in the price of gas. Well what happened there? OH YEAH! A oil crisis! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill) I could go on and on about how wrong you are, but I really don't have the time not the patience. Enjoy the egg on your face!

P.S. Here is a direct quote from the president during his speech at the Rose Garden.
"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."

Facts are good no?

[Splorf22]

I don't think we can blame the gas prices on Obama specifically, but we can blame them on Greenspan/Bernanke and the Fed. You can't create trillions of dollars out of nowhere without inflation. There is a reason soybeans are $15 instead of $6.

[hatelore bloodlust]

P.S. Here is a direct quote from the president during his speech at the Rose Garden.
"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."

Facts are good no?[/QUOTE]

Well , since we are calling each other names, you fucking moron. That quote was a generalized quote about terrorism. He was not referring to the Attack in Libya, he was speaking in general about terrorism. Infact, you fucking moron, to this day he has still not uttered the words terrorist attack in relations to what happened in Libya. Infact did your dumb ass see what he said on Comedy Central tonight regarding the attack in Libya?

And No, sadly I did not take the time to look through all your gay polls, You like all Libtards like to dwell on the past. THIS IS THE HERE AND THE NOW, GET OVER THE PAST WHEN BUSH WAS IN OFFICE. We are talking about your guy, the complete and utter failure named Obama.The same failure who has had 4 years to do something, anything. It hurts what I posted in that first post right? I am sorry about that, the truth does sometime hurt.

On election day, mark my words... You will be crying when Obama gives his losing speech with horseface in the background crying that they now have to go back to there ghetto in Chicago :(


Your guy was a fraud, but I don't expect you to realize that since you are obviously in complete denial.

[Lexical]

Well , since we are calling each other names, you fucking moron. That quote was a generalized quote about terrorism. He was not referring to the Attack in Libya, he was speaking in general about terrorism. Infact, you fucking moron, to this day he has still not uttered the words terrorist attack in relations to what happened in Libya. Infact did your dumb ass see what he said on Comedy Central tonight regarding the attack in Libya?

And No, sadly I did not take the time to look through all your gay polls, You like all Libtards like to dwell on the past. THIS IS THE HERE AND THE NOW, GET OVER THE PAST WHEN BUSH WAS IN OFFICE. We are talking about your guy, the complete and utter failure named Obama.The same failure who has had 4 years to do something, anything. It hurts what I posted in that first post right? I am sorry about that, the truth does sometime hurt.

On election day, mark my words... You will be crying when Obama gives his losing speech with horseface in the background crying that they now have to go back to there ghetto in Chicago :(


Your guy was a fraud, but I don't expect you to realize that since you are obviously in complete denial.

Post some facts and see the dipshits get butt hurt. Feels good. :D

Also, you need to work on your reading comprehension skills. :) Get in touch with your 3rd grade teacher!