So that's it for the election.

[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.

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Slave [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.

[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_c...um=homepagead#

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

[Autumnbow]

Originally Posted by eqravenprince [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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_c...um=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

[Reiker000]

Originally Posted by eqravenprince [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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_c...um=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

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Reiker000 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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-wind...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.

[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]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.

[Lexical]

Originally Posted by eqravenprince [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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_c...um=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?

[Frieza_Prexus]

Originally Posted by Alarti

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.