The Theism/Atheism Discussion

[Nancy Allen``]

Where is the logic in all this? It may be that I cannot comprehend how big this plot is but from what we've ascertained Bush intends to destroy the world so that Jesus will return and bring about Revelations. Logically he knows he can't force Jesus to return but he's going to destroy the world anyway trying to do so. The people who voted for him in 2000 and 2004 are Christians and want Jesus to return, want Bush to force Jesus' return. The people Bush appointed to positions of power are Christians and are in on Bush's plan, they made sure Bush won no matter what the votes were. September 11 was allowed to happen or set up by Bush so he can set this grand plan into motion, first by attacking Afghanistan and then Iraq, with the retalliation for his actions throwing the world into further chaos. To add to the drama Bush continues to support Israel rather than help Palestine wipe them out, something he knows will cause further strife. And even though everything is tied up in Afghanistan and Iraq Bush is looking at other targets such as Iran, Saudi Arabia and North Korea. And all of this isn't because Bush is after the oil that Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia are rich in but to do the logically impossible and force Jesus to return and 'save' the human race through what the fairy tale known as the Bible has fortold in Revelations. Does that about sum it up? Am I missing any pieces of the puzzle? So where does logic come into this? Logically Bush cannot force Jesus to return, logically Christianity is meant to be a myth in the first place isn't it? Logically a devestated world is no use to anyone. Logically positive relations with America and the rest of the world look about as positive as communism did. Logically the military would be exhausted to really no avail. Logically Bush could be attempting to cull the weak who would be killed during his actions, but to what logical purpose?

[Achilles]

Where is the logic in all this? It may be that I cannot comprehend how big this plot is but from what we've ascertained Bush intends to destroy the world so that Jesus will return and bring about Revelations.

Nope. Pretty please recognize that this is a movement for which Bush is a figurehead.

 

Logically he knows he can't force Jesus to return but he's going to destroy the world anyway trying to do so. The people who voted for him in 2000 and 2004 are Christians and want Jesus to return, want Bush to force Jesus' return.

No logic to it. I don't know (and neither do you) that Bush (or his supporters) "know" that they can't force (or to my point, influence) events.

 

The people Bush appointed to positions of power are Christians and are in on Bush's plan

Close. I don't know if I'd call it "Bush's plan". Many of the key players have been around for a long time (wolfowitz, cheney, rumsfeld). Many people see the current administration as the product of the last few years but these guys have been in control since the 70's minus the 8 years Clinton was president.

 

they made sure Bush won no matter what the votes were.

It's slightly more complicated than that, but essentially yes. Don't take my word for it. Do your own research.

 

September 11 was allowed to happen or set up by Bush so he can set this grand plan into motion, first by attacking Afghanistan and then Iraq, with the retalliation for his actions throwing the world into further chaos.

That's one of the theories. Look up "Project for a New American Century". Take note of who signed the statement of principles (especially those that are in key administrative roles). Finally, read "Rebuilding America's Defenses" (published September 2000). Then tell me what you think.

 

To add to the drama Bush continues to support Israel rather than help Palestine wipe them out, something he knows will cause further strife.

Not quite. One of the more popular signs of the 2nd coming is that Israel will be returned to the Israelis. Bush doesn't support the Palestinians, rather he supported a two-state solution before general elections put Hamas in power. Now all bets are off.

 

And even though everything is tied up in Afghanistan and Iraq Bush is looking at other targets such as Iran, Saudi Arabia and North Korea.

Nope. Saudi Arabia is an ally (SA alliance with the U.S. is why UBL hates us). Prophecy says "war" and Bush thinks god is on his side. So what if everyone else can see that we're spread too thin. How do you think the Roman Empire was toppled?

 

And all of this isn't because Bush is after the oil that Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia are rich in....

We already have a partnership with Saudi Arabia. Arguably, keeping Saddam (a dictator that we put into power to keep Iran in check) around would have kept oil prices stable. Maybe Bush wanted the oil to keep China from getting it, but China is looking to South America for oil, so....*shrugs*

 

I'm sure there's a case for it being "all about the oil", but there also seems to be a case for "the oil was just fine". Aside from the fact that world oil production peaked in 2005 but I'm not sure what invading the middle east would have done to change that. Make Haliburton rich maybe?

 

but to do the logically impossible and force Jesus to return and 'save' the human race through what the fairy tale known as the Bible has fortold in Revelations.

Not a matter of logic. We left that arena the moment religion got involved.

 

"but to help foster the conditions set forth by prophecy and to help set the stage for Jesus to return and 'save' the human race through what the fairy tale known as the Bible has foretold in Revelations." might be closer to what is argued to be the case.

 

Be careful not to set up a false dichotomy here. Arguing the the U.S. gov't was after the oil does not automatically exclude the possibility that they were after religious conquest as well. There are other possible answers too, so don't tie yourself down to an either/or argument.

 

Does that about sum it up? Am I missing any pieces of the puzzle? So where does logic come into this?

Where did I lose you?

 

Logically Bush cannot force Jesus to return,

Logic has nothing to do with it. We're in the realm of faith now.

 

logically Christianity is meant to be a myth in the first place isn't it?

Yep, but as I've stated dozens of times, it's not about what I/we believe, it's about what they believe. This point is essential to your understanding of the problem. I cannot stress this enough.

 

Logically a devestated world is no use to anyone.

After the rapture, christ will sustain the earth. Sure walking the tightrope might seem risky, but not so much if you think there's a safety net the size of rhode island beneath you. Doesn't matter whether or not it's real, only that you believe it's there.

 

Logically positive relations with America and the rest of the world look about as positive as communism did.

Not sure I take your meaning. The opinions of others means jack-squat when you believe that truth is on your side.

 

Logically the military would be exhausted to really no avail.

And if you believe that god is on your side? He's the one that told you to go, after all.

 

Logically Bush could be attempting to cull the weak who would be killed during his actions, but to what logical purpose?

Not sure. That's your theory, not mine. You'd have to tell me.

[Nancy Allen``]

I'm having a look at these sources, but I'm wondering, are you hedging your bets with religion? The Bible's meant to be fiction isn't it? Bush can't bring back a fictional character, but he's trying, so maybe religion is real. Either way if he is trying to throw the world into chaos and force Jesus to return he's doing a very half hearted job about it. A few nukes should do the trick. Leave the devestation of Iraq rather than trying to bebuild and strike somewhere else.

[Achilles]

I'm having a look at these sources, but I'm wondering, are you hedging your bets with religion?

I'm not sure what this means. Could you expand on this please?

 

The Bible's meant to be fiction isn't it? Bush can't bring back a fictional character, but he's trying, so maybe religion is real.

Or maybe the rapture right is dealing in something other than reason. Guess which one of those scenarios we have more evidence for.

 

Either way if he is trying to throw the world into chaos and force Jesus to return he's doing a very half hearted job about it. A few nukes should do the trick. Leave the devestation of Iraq rather than trying to bebuild and strike somewhere else.

If the Bush administration were to begin launching nuclear weapons unprovoked, it would not take long at all to for other countries to say enough is enough and stage an intervention. I said these people are irrational...not stupid.

 

That's the bigger problem. The smaller problem is who would he nuke?

[Nancy Allen``]

How about the traitors such as France and Germany, who refused to have anything to do with Iraq?

 

Seriously if chaos, ergo forcing Jesus to return is his plan why the need to be subtle?

 

As I said you believe the Bible is fiction, but Bush is trying to force Jesus to return even though according to the Bible he can't, so maybe you're thinking that it might be true. Maybe Bush can force this fictional Jesus to return and bring about Revelations.

[Achilles]

How about the traitors such as France and Germany, who refused to have anything to do with Iraq?

That's a good idea. Why don't you write to him and ask why he hasn't started nuking people yet? In the mean time, I'll stay here and try to figure out what this line of thinking has to do with what we were discussing.

 

Seriously if chaos, ergo forcing Jesus to return is his plan why the need to be subtle?

The Bush administration has been anything but subtle. I think you're trying to take my arguments to an extreme that I have not suggested. While you are more than welcome to do so, it won't help to move the dialog forward.

 

As I said you believe the Bible is fiction, but Bush is trying to force Jesus to return even though according to the Bible he can't, so maybe you're thinking that it might be true. Maybe Bush can force this fictional Jesus to return and bring about Revelations.

Really, Nancy, my thinking on this should be crystal clear to you by now. It's not about what I believe, it's about what the rapture right believes. What part of that am I failing to explain adequately?

 

Thanks.

[BruceLee_Reborn]

Ya know, Atheism is a faith too. you can't say any religion is right or wrong, cause there just isn't enough evidence either way. personally, i'm a Christian, cause it makes sense to me and it's what i choose to believe. what you believe won't change reality. the universe is the way it is. And what is this about Bush destroying the world to effect Christs return? I mean, that's kinda up to God last I checked.

ps: thanks Achilles, appreciate the welcome. figured i'd stop by this thread and stalk you till you convert!!! joking....i hope......but seriously, i mean if you wanna..... God, er, i mean....primordial ooze:laughing:.....bless you kind sir....have a good day

[Achilles]

Ya know, Atheism is a faith too.

It is not. Faith is belief with little, no, or contradictory evidence. Faith makes positive statement regarding belief. Theism makes the claim that a god or gods exists without any evidence.

 

Atheism is belief-neutral. In order for atheism to be considered faith, it would have to make some positive statement regarding the existence or non-existence of god. Since there is no evidence for the existence of a god and one cannot prove non-existence of anything, atheism cannot possibly be based on faith.

 

In summary: sorry, sir. You're wrong

 

you can't say it's right or wrong, cause there just isn't enough evidence either way.

There is no evidence at all and that's the whole point of being atheistic. Theists presume to know something without any evidence. Atheists recognize that there is no evidence and therefore remain neutral.

 

personally, i'm a Christian, cause it makes sense to me and it's what i choose to believe. what you believe won't change reality.

Actually, sir, what you believe won't change reality.

 

the universe is the way it is.

Indeed.

 

And what is this about Bush destroying the world to effect Christs return? I mean, that's kinda up to God last I checked

You'll have to ask Nancy Allen about that one as it is her caricature of my argument. As such, she's the only one that will be able to explain it.

 

EDIT: Whoops! There's more now

 

ps: thanks Achilles, appreciate the welcome. figured i'd stop by this thread and stalk you till you convert!!!

Good luck with that! You have quite a bit of work ahead of you.

 

joking....i hope......but seriously, i mean if you wanna.....

I'll believe just as soon as there's some evidence. If you can provide some, I'll be happy to make the switch.

 

God, er, i mean....primordial ooze.....bless you kind sir....have a good day

You do the same.

 

Take care.

[BruceLee_Reborn]

It is not. Faith is belief with little, no, or contradictory evidence. Faith makes positive statement regarding belief. Theism makes the claim that a god or gods exists without any evidence.

 

it contradicts itself. a lot. to use a slightly overused argument, just for fun, where did matter origionate? hmm? that's what i thought...

 

There is no evidence at all and that's the whole point of being atheistic. Theists presume to know something without any evidence. Atheists recognize that there is no evidence and therefore remain neutral.

 

ugh, i don't get it. could you explain the neutrality thing? i'm not sure i understand. and are you a Theist, or an Atheist?

 

Actually, sir, what you believe won't change reality.

 

that's true

 

Good luck with that! You have quite a bit of work ahead of you.

 

oh, don't worry, i'm diligint:nut:

 

I'll believe just as soon as there's some evidence. If you can provide some, I'll be happy to make the switch.

 

Oh i will....you just wait

 

sir.....

[Gargoyle King]

It is not. Faith is belief with little, no, or contradictory evidence. Faith makes positive statement regarding belief. Theism makes the claim that a god or gods exists without any evidence.

 

Atheism is belief-neutral. In order for atheism to be considered faith, it would have to make some positive statement regarding the existence or non-existence of god. Since there is no evidence for the existence of a god and one cannot prove non-existence of anything, atheism cannot possibly be based on faith.

 

In summary: sorry, sir. You're wrong

 

- i like that last bit, a straight to the point conclusion! I agree with this statement, like you said Atheism cannot be a 'belief' of 'faith' (i ain't gonna lie - i'm one of them) as Atheists strive to prove the non-existance of a god or gods (depending on faith); in contrast a person of faith believes in their heart unflinchingly that God exists. I believe what people believe in is their own accord, i respect believer's just as non-believers because at the end of the day it's that person's choice in life and no-one can tell them otherwise.

[BruceLee_Reborn]

who founded Atheism?

 

 

I believe what people believe in is their own accord, i respect believer's just as non-believers because at the end of the day it's that person's choice in life and no-one can tell them otherwise.

 

ok, i agree with that

[Achilles]

it contradicts itself. a lot.

Religion? Yes, I know

 

to use a slightly overused argument, just for fun, where did matter origionate? hmm? that's what i thought...

The Big Bang, of course

 

Ok, that's the "how" not necessarily the "where". I'll be serious now.

 

The answer is that I (we) don't know (although science has many hypothesis and theories that are based on evidence). The truth is that you don't know either (no one does), but your religion claims to have an answer that cannot be proven.

 

The difference between religion and science is that science accepts that and then tries to find out, whereas religion just makes something up and declares it "truth" despite an utter lack of evidence.

 

ugh, i don't get it. could you explain the neutrality thing? i'm not sure i understand. and are you a Theist, or an Atheist?

Atheist (although I have to tell you, the term is ridiculous).

 

Picture a number line that goes from -100 to 100. Theism (positive or negative) is anything other than 0. Anti-theism is anything less than 0. Positive theism is anything greater than 0. Atheism is 0.

 

In order to deny a god or gods, you have to first believe in one, which is why I reject the definition of atheism that suggests that it's "a denial of god". To accept or deny a god is to make a positive statement (one way or another) regarding that god's existence. True atheism (imho) does not make a positive statement in either direction, seeking to remain neutral.

 

Any atheist that says that he or she wouldn't accept god or gods if evidence was presented has beliefs just as dogmatic as the religion(s) they claim to oppose.

 

Is that easier to digest? Let me know if I can clarify anything further.

 

Oh i will....you just wait

I look forward to seeing what you bring to the table

 

who founded Atheism?

Atheism is a natural state, therefore it has no founder. Everything in the universe is atheistic until it is indoctrinated into a religious tradition.

 

Think about it for a second:

 

a = without

theism = belief in the existence of a god or gods.

 

Little babies are without belief in the existence of a god or gods. Same thing goes for trees, rocks, stop signs, planets, stars, nebulae, etc. Everything is atheistic until it has been indoctrinated (I prefer the term brainwashed, but that gets me banned ), into a religion.

 

You, yourself are extremely atheistic and probably don't even realize it. You probably don't believe in Zeus, Hera, Hermes, Poseidon, Hades, Osiris, Ra, Isis, Amun, Ptah, Amaterasu, Owadatsumi, Susanowo, Brahma, Vaishnava, Allah, Yahweh, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Celestial Teapot, or any of the hundreds of other deities that I have not listed here. You are completely atheistic to all the gods that "exist" now or have ever "existed"...except one. Atheists just extend their disbelief one god further than you.

 

I hope that gives you something to chew on.

 

Take care.

[BruceLee_Reborn]

huh. that actually makes sense. the part where atheists reject ALL gods, whereas theist accept one, but reject all others. by the way, what kind of atheist are you? darwinian(there's that image of a monkey in my mind a gain:)), or something else? and do you believe in evolution?

[Achilles]

huh. that actually makes sense. the part where atheists reject ALL gods, whereas theist accept one, but reject all others.

Yeah, I kinda think so too

 

by the way, what kind of atheist are you?

To be honest, I'm not sure how one would go about categorizing atheists. How do we categorize people that don't believe that Elvis is still alive?

 

darwinian(there's that image of a monkey in my mind a gain:)), or something else? and do you believe in evolution?

Yes, I accept that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that supports the theory (NOT HYPOTHESIS!) of evolution. I accept that conclusion until a better explanation which fits the evidence is presented. My offer to answer any questions/challenges/reservations that you have about ToE over in the evolution thread still stands

[BruceLee_Reborn]

the THEORY of evolution was founded by charles darwin when he studied finchis on the galapogos (or however it's spelled) islands. what he witnessed was survival of the fittest, which i accept as true, cause logically the most fit will survive to reproduce. no one has witnessed the evolution of a new species. besides, do you REALLY believe the 300000000000000 years ago, you're great^999 grandparent was an ameoba?? i mean, i feel much better knowing that there was an intelligent designer creating all this. wouldn't you?

[Dagobahn Eagle]

the THEORY of evolution [...]

Yes, the scientific theory of evolution. Like the scientific theories of atoms and gravity. All proven.

 

no one has witnessed the evolution of a new species.

Actually, believe it or not... they have. Pretty amazing, isn't it?

 

Here are some more.

 

besides, do you REALLY believe the 300000000000000 years ago, you're great^999 grandparent was an ameoba?? i mean, i feel much better knowing that there was an intelligent designer creating all this. wouldn't you?

Doesn't really matter, when it comes down to truths, right? I don't want the Holocaust to have been real either... it still is.

[Achilles]

the THEORY of evolution was founded by charles darwin when he studied finchis on the galapogos (or however it's spelled) islands. what he witnessed was survival of the fittest, which i accept as true, cause logically the most fit will survive to reproduce.

You're using the word theory out of context. It has a very definitive meaning when used in a scientific context. Wikipedia to the rescue.

 

no one has witnessed the evolution of a new species.

Wrong. We discover new species all the time. Some go extinct. Others appear from nowhere. We do observe evolution on the micro scale all the time and there is substantial evidence that shows that it happens on the macro scale as well.

 

Predictions are just as powerful as observations within the scientific method. If I hypothesize that whales evolved from land mammals, I don't have to have seen it happen with my own eyes to test my hypothesis.

 

If I look at the modern whale I can find hip and pelvic remnants. From this I can hypothesize that whales evolved from land mammals. From this I can assume that if I look a little bit into the past (a few million years) I can find fossils that are very whale like but have hind legs or flippers (like Basilosaurus). I can hypothesize that if I go back even further (a few more million years), I can find similar fossils of mammals that were equipped for both life on land and life in water (such as Ambulocetus). Finally, I can hypothesize that if I go back even further (more millions of years), I can find fossils of fully land-based mammals that share characteristics with the other fossil finds (like Pakicetids).

 

So even though there's no possible way that I could have ever witnessed such a transformation with my own eyes, I can certainly find an awful lot of evidence that support my hypothesis. Since I can create similar "family trees" for almost any animal that we know about and make similar predictions, we graduate our hypothesis into theory. Until we can figure out a way to go back in time and witness every single genetic mutation that's ever occurred, we cannot bestow the highest honor possible, which is the status of law. I guess we'll just have to be ok with being 99.99999% certain

 

Compare that to a few hundred conflicting stories about invisible skydaddies that made everything out of dirt, dust, ash, or clay in a single day and tell me which one of those options seems to make the most sense.

 

besides, do you REALLY believe the 300000000000000 years ago, you're great^999 grandparent was an ameoba??

Sure. You have to have single-cell life before you can have multi-cellular life (aka "you have to walk before you can run").

 

i mean, i feel much better knowing that there was an intelligent designer creating all this. wouldn't you?

I'd feel better knowing that I was a billionaire, but that isn't going to make it true.

 

No, I would much rather have the truth than a fable. There's no certainty in fables.

 

Thanks for reading.

 

PS: Really though, if we delve into evolution any further, we should take it to the appropriate thread.

[BruceLee_Reborn]

alright, alright. i'll go over there

[JediKnight707]

Achilles, I'm going to pick you out here, because of a post I saw you make on the Athiest thread; but I'm only singling you out because you happened to mention it, not because you are alone in this particular train of thought.

 

You said that religion is harming our lives, but in this I believe you are wrong. I think that religion is how our society was created, its the basis for what we call society. We live by the Ten Commandments, or at least some of them, and to say that that's not right would be wrong.

 

The Ten Commandments state among other things:

Thou shalt not steal

Thou shalt not murder

 

Aren't those the ground rules for civilization as we know it? Those are considered to be the worst offenses a man can commit, if you group torture and those sort of things with murder.

 

And you can even say that adultery is considered a capital offense in the eye of the public, which is what matters most. We all remember Bill Clinton for cheating on Hilary or whatever that situation was (I was too young). As a President I'm sure he was a great one, but the adultery always lingers in my thoughts--and I'd like to think I'm not alone in this--when I think of him.

 

You may say that George Bush is a bad President because he doesn't consider Athiests people. I've yet to see a President that was an Athiest. I'm not saying that Athiests would be bad Presidents, I'm merely saying that America is without a doubt the greatest country in the world. And when you think of a country as great, you must look to its leaders. So, if America is great, its leaders must have been great. I'm not saying they were great because they believed in God, I'm saying that this country is great because it was built on the beliefs of God.

 

I've never read the Bible in its entireity, as its way too long, and just didn't quite hook me (reading about God creating the World, while cool, just isn't attention-grabbing). So, maybe I'm wrong in this statment, but I don't think the Bible contradicts itself, nor do I think that Christianity contradicts itself. I'm not sure about this, as I'm not an expert, this is merely what I believe in.

[Emperor Devon]

I think that religion is how our society was created, its the basis for what we call society. We live by the Ten Commandments,

 

Which, I might point out, are borrowed versions of already existing moralities. You don't think "don't kill your neighbor and he won't kill you" didn't exist before the Bible was written (or if you want to run with it, before Moses was supposedly around), do you? "I leave you alone and you leave me alone" is a concept that's been around for about as long as there were humans with the capacity to understand it, and it's hardly a concept that can be made any better or worse than believing in a deity.

 

As a President I'm sure he was a great one, but the adultery always lingers in my thoughts--and I'd like to think I'm not alone in this--when I think of him.

 

Clinton wasn't the first politician to be a skirt-chaser and he won't be the last. IMO, though, it's completely irrelevant for someone's qualities as a politician. As long as they can do a good enough job in office, their sex lives are irrelevant. Who they have sex with is their business, and as long as it doesn't interfere with their abilities to be President/something else it should remain theirs.

 

You may say that George Bush is a bad President because he doesn't consider Athiests people.

 

I can think of a whole lot more reasons to consider Bush one of the worst Presidents in our history apart from that, but I'm getting off-topic...

 

I've yet to see a President that was an Athiest.

 

How does this relate to their ability to consider people with diverging religious views people?

 

I'm not saying that Athiests would be bad Presidents, I'm merely saying that America is without a doubt the greatest country in the world.

 

I would disagree. A country is really nothing but the people and the possessions they own in it, and frankly it's extremely arrogant to consider ourselves better than everyone else. No human being is born superior to another, and where they live is not going to change that.

 

I've never read the Bible in its entireity, as its way too long,

 

You've missed out on some stuff. An explanation below the next quote follows:

 

So, maybe I'm wrong in this statment, but I don't think the Bible contradicts itself, nor do I think that Christianity contradicts itself. I'm not sure about this, as I'm not an expert, this is merely what I believe in.

 

I think whether the Bible contradicts itself or not is secondary to some of the absolutely monstrous things it claims:

 

'If your brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife tries to secretly entice you, telling you to go and worship other gods, gods of people living near you, or far from you, or anywhere on earth, do not listen to him.'

 

'You must kill them. Show them no pity. And your hand must strike the first blow.'

 

'Then the hands of all the people. You shall stone them to death.'

 

'If a man happens to meet a virgin woman who is not engaged to be married...'

 

'...And he seizes her and rapes her...'

 

'...but is caught in the act...'

 

'...the rapist must pay the girl's father fifty silver shekels.'

 

'She must marry the rapist, because he has violated her. And so long as he lives, he may not divorce her.'

 

'If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not listen to the voice of his father...'

 

'...or his mother...'

 

'...even when they punish him...'

 

'...his father and mother must take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town.'

 

'They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard."'

 

'All the men of the town must then stone him to death. You must banish this evil from among you.'

 

More quotes... (Kudos to Achilles for the link in his sig)

 

Cruelty and violence in the Bible

 

Intolerance

[JediKnight707]

Which, I might point out, are borrowed versions of already existing moralities. You don't think "don't kill your neighbor and he won't kill you" didn't exist before the Bible was written (or if you want to run with it, before Moses was supposedly around), do you? "I leave you alone and you leave me alone" is a concept that's been around for about as long as there were humans with the capacity to understand it, and it's hardly a concept that can be made any better or worse than believing in a deity.

 

 

Well, of course its borrowed, every religion borrows something from a different religion. But would you not say that the Founding Fathers were Christians, and one might say that they were inspired in part because of the Bible?

 

 

Clinton wasn't the first politician to be a skirt-chaser and he won't be the last. IMO, though, it's completely irrelevant for someone's qualities as a politician. As long as they can do a good enough job in office, their sex lives are irrelevant. Who they have sex with is their business, and as long as it doesn't interfere with their abilities to be President/something else it should remain theirs.

 

 

As long as it doesn't interfere with their abilities, then it should be irrelevent. But with the media being the huge God (no pun intended) it is nowadays, it is going to interfere. It may be unfortunate, but its the truth. America, on the whole, cares about celebreties, and the President is a celebrity. So, the President is chewed out more so than anybody, as he is the leader. So, if a President is caught in a sex scandal, then the world is gonna know about it, and going to care about it. This would distract the President from his duties. Hence, it interferes.

 

 

I can think of a whole lot more reasons to consider Bush one of the worst Presidents in our history apart from that, but I'm getting off-topic...

 

 

Just using that as an example.

 

 

 

I would disagree. A country is really nothing but the people and the possessions they own in it, and frankly it's extremely arrogant to consider ourselves better than everyone else. No human being is born superior to another, and where they live is not going to change that.

 

 

To say that would be naive. A country is its military and political prowess. To say it simpler, a country is its image. And America projects the image of unity, freedom, strength, but most importantly: power. We are the Empire, just a more forgiving Empire. We've got the Death Star: our image. People are scared by us, we intimidate other countries. We have been truly attacked twice on our soil in the past 100 years or so. Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Countries are afraid to attack us.

 

 

 

I think whether the Bible contradicts itself or not is secondary to some of the absolutely monstrous things it claims:

 

It was a different time back then. Monstrous now, normal then. At least, that's what I think. No one knows what actually went on back.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

The Ten Commandments state among other things:

Thou shalt not steal

Thou shalt not murder

 

Aren't those the ground rules for civilization as we know it?

Yes, but they certainly do not originally come from the Bible. Altruism is a base instinct in most, if not all mammals, as far as I know. It's been with us since before we evolved into homo sapiens, hundreds of thousands of years ago.

 

And we actually live quite differently than the 10 commandments want us to. There's no law against coveting thine neighbour's goods, in fact, the capitalist system of the West seems to revolve around getting your hands on as much as or more than what your buddies and family members have. Whatever happened to Thou shalt not covet thine neighbor's ox, or wife, or PlayStation?

 

I'm not saying they were great because they believed in God, I'm saying that this country is great because it was built on the beliefs of God.

The statement that the USA was originally a Christian nation is history revisionism from religious fundamentalists. Several of the founding fathers of the US were atheists, and according to sources such as the Treaty of Tripoli, the US was not started as a Christian State.

 

Oh, and regarding the Golden Rule:

What you do not wish upon yourself, extend not to others.

When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt.

This is the sum of duty; do naught unto others what you would not have them do unto you.

Many of these originate litterally centuries before the birth of Christ.

[Darth InSidious]

I'd just like to point out that the supposed Golden Rule in the Sermon on the Mount/Sermon on the Plain/somewhere in Mark is not Jesus teaching: ""Do unto others as you would have done unto you" - this is the law and the prophets". Jesus is setting a standard higher than the old - that you must treat others better than you would wish to be treated yourself. That's the point of the Beatitudes/Six Antitheses, and the parables of Matthew 25 (Where the Beatitudes are outlooks, Matthew 25 is the practical applications, IIRC).

[Nancy Allen``]

I'd just like to point out that a lot of the Bible quotes ED quoted have, as far as I understand it, been superceded by New Testement, Jesus dying for our sins, ect. I'd also like to point out that such trains of thought are absolute BS by any standered. Then again, daring God's athority by declaring that even he couldn't sink the Titanic probably seemed like a good idea at the time.

[Samnmax221]

I'd just like to point out that a lot of the Bible quotes ED quoted have, as far as I understand it, been superceded by New Testement, Jesus dying for our sins, ect.

God needs to look into this great thing called Concept Mapping before he starts writing things down.