So that's it for the election. - Page 40

Humerox · #**391** 10-19-2012, 04:06 PM

Quote:

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

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

True. I'd forgotten about Iran.

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

Humerox · #**392** 10-19-2012, 04:08 PM

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

Alarti0001 · #**393** 10-19-2012, 04:12 PM

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reiker000 · #**394** 10-19-2012, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Atheism is the scientific stance

wtf is scientific about atheism?

Daldolma · #**395** 10-19-2012, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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

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

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

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

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

Lucky · #**396** 10-19-2012, 05:30 PM

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

Lucky · #**397** 10-19-2012, 05:34 PM

Quote:

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

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

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

Alarti0001 · #**398** 10-19-2012, 05:59 PM

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Try Logic instead of reason then.

Llodd · #**399** 10-19-2012, 05:59 PM

god lawyering gone mad

Alarti0001 · #**400** 10-19-2012, 05:59 PM

Quote:

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

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

Back-up this claim or be labled a moron.