user1991

Both theories whether it was God or the BBT which created the universe are as illogical as others, 1 just has physical proof and the other doesn't. Both theories are based on something appearing out of nowhere, whether it's God or the vast amounts of matter involved in the BBT, both are as illogical as the other as nothing can appear out of nowhere or be made from nothing, matter can't just appear but neither can an all-powerful being. I go to the Jesuit school also, we're encouraged to think for ourselves, develop our own opinions but also the basic Jesuit ethos, be the best of what you can be and help others. Honestly, sounds like you're just going with what the priests you know are telling you to believe. At least it's Jesuits you're listening to anyway, religious people with a lot of sense. The Big Bang isn't "something out of nothing" Also, even if it was, people continuously talk of the Big Bang in the sense that "something can't come from nothing" or "actual infinites cannot exist, the universe never having a beginning is an actual infinite therefore the universe must have had a beginning," when in actuality both of these assertions are hilariously stupid. God too can be made to regress infinitely. Where did God come from? How can actual infinites not exist when God is infinite, as well as heaven and hell? They start out with the most complex physical thing (the Universe), and in order to explain the so called inconsistencies in scientific theory, they posit an actual omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient consciousness that they call God. Which one of these two ideas is more complex? It doesn't make any sense. If you're going to be making any assumptions (which you shouldn't be), positing an infinitely wise consciousness that is everywhere at once and outside of the rules of logic in order to explain the Universe is preposterous. You might as well just assume the Universe is infinite.

its important because there is a difference between not thinking god exists and being so sure that you say things like "God does not exist". The English language is at fault here. Many people consider "I don't believe in God" the same as saying "there is no God." Whilst many people do say "there is no God," what is meant by 99% of them is "there is no evidence for any God, and therefore I consider it highly unlikely that God exists." Simply because theism is a positive assertion, lots of people consider atheism to be the exact opposite, and therefore a positive assertion, when in actuality, saying that "there is no evidence for God therefore I do not believe" is not the same as saying "there is no God." I doubt any atheist here would claim that it is actually impossible for there to be a God. The whole "strong atheism" thing was just created to satisfy the annoying, semantics arguing theists who can't seem to understand that the English language isn't perfect and that phrases can have different meanings. So again, being an atheist does not mean that you say it is impossible for there to be a God (hardly anyone would say this), but simply that there is no/not enough evidence to believe in the existence of a God. When an atheist says "there is no God," they say it in the same way that they would say "there are no fairies". Fairies could conceivably exist, yet we say that they "don't" because there is no evidence for their existence. In our opinion, it is the same for God. However, it is obvious, at least to anyone who actually cares to consider the nuances of the English language and what is meant when we say things, that the phrase "there is no", rarely actually means "there is no possible way that ___ could ever exist". It simply means that there is no evidence for it. You are drastically oversimplifying the issue here. Again, have you considered that the English language isn't perfectly suited to describe these things? First of all, consider that the atheist says these two sentences: 1. I have no belief in God 2. I believe that God does not exist The phrase "having no belief" is, technically, different in meaning to "I believe there is no," yet when used in discussing the existence of something or any sort of empirically based claim (you're the ones that started it. If you want to argue God isn't possibly or logically knowable a posteriori then that's an argument for another day) what is actually meant is that "the evidence shows that there is no therefore I do not consider ___ to exist" As shown earlier, the English language - coupled with your need to see things as diametric opposites and without any sort of gradation, are misleading in the sense that the "I believe" leads us to believe that the second is a positive assertion, when in actuality, what is actually meant is "I believe that there is no/little evidence for God, and therefore consider that he does not exist." What you, and many people before you are doing, is playing a big game of semantics and jumping on a flaw in the English language to advance your happy medium fallacy and make agnosticism seem like the only reasonable thing to believe. No. How many times do I have to hear "atheism and theism are both dogmatic as they are both positive assertions, belief and belief in the lack of blah blah blah blah im a douche bag" before you guys understand that "belief in the lack of", as well as belief as a concept are misleading in pretty much every possible way and that naturally, inconsistencies in the technicalities of language make certain things (such as belief), confusing, especially when arguing positive assertions, and that before we start arguing the veracity of certain claims, we need to make clear the EXACT meaning of all the concepts involved, which is as follows; Theists: "God exists." Atheist: "I have looked at the evidence for and against God's existence and have come to the conclusion that God does not exist. Although it is still technically possible, I consider it highly unlikely" Arguing that opposite "beliefs" are positive assertions simply because they are "beliefs" is idiotic and dishonest in every way I can think of. The burden of proof is on them because as repeated a billion times, you don't start with a conclusion, you have to give proof or at least evidence before we consider the existence of something. Claiming the non existence of something, unless it has already been proven, is not a positive assertion because it makes no positive claim on the nature of what we know to be reality. "Yellow Elephants who can talk and call themselves Peter exist." "No they don't." "FAITH FAITH. AHAH STUPID ANTI ELEPHANTIST DENIALIER. YOU HAVE FAITH. THEREFORE EVERYTHING WE SAY IS AUTOMATICALLY EQUAL" Now theists, and oversimplification loving agnostics, this has been explained to you 50023400 times before. Please, never mention it again.

"Strongly disagree"--most big corporations are greedy, exploitive parasites. I reckon it is a little biased. I also think some of the questions are poorly thought through. Take the one about abortion, for example: saying "disagree" would imply that you're pro-abortion when you may not be. The should have mentioned the child; just because I wouldn't want to bring a baby into the world to suffer terribly or die doesn't mean I approve of abortions. I'd also point out this one: I know, I didn't know what to put for that last one. Because technically, that is an advantage of a one party state. Yet I would never endorse a totalitarian system.

Agreed. Obama, like any mainstream politician, will have people that support him regardless of his policies or whether he comes through on his promises. The difference between Obama and Bush however is that with Obama, these people are in the minority, whereas with the neo-cons, they were the vast majority. For example, does anyone remember the neo-con cries of "freedom hating leftists!" and "they hate us because we're free!", whilst at the same time they were supporting the suspension of habeas corpus and posse comitatus? Now actual conservatives are different if I'm being honest, they are usually Ron Paul type libertarians, however these neo-cons are authoritarian nationalists. The neoconservatives aren't conservative.

I think memes is a pretty cool guy. eh kills aliens and doesn't afraid of anything.

You "Mossiah" is already doing that. Now anyone under the age of 13 can't buy a dirt bike because they are afraid they might lick the gear box. That is defiantly not controlling my life! When they became a terrorist they gave up their human rights. They can step all over every other persons but when they get caught they go and hide behind the rights they just so blatantly blew up. You say that the torture encourages terrorism... Who did what first? They attacked us, we retaliated. Point Blank. Robert keep on fighting. Messiah? I assume that you're calling me an Obama freak. Well first of all, I don't live in the USA, and second, even if I did I wouldn't have voted for Obama. Your understanding of terrorism and its causes is so simplistic its actually making me cringe reading your post. There are lots of reasons people become terrorists, some are our fault, some aren't. For example, overthrowing a democratically elected government in Iran in order to install a dictator who was sympathetic to Western interests causes future generations to hate us. Decades of imperialism in the Middle East causes future generations to hate us. Never criticizing Israel, regardless of their disproportionately violent retaliatory attacks against Palestine on a UN school and supply trucks during agreed cease fire time, as well as their treating of Palestinians as animals, causes the Middle East to hate us. (Palestine aren't perfect either, don't infer that I'm saying that, but we're always quick to criticize them.) Having secret prisons where people are tortured (most of which have never been charged with any crimes) causes the Middle East to hate us. I'm not justifying terrorism, so don't even try to pull a Giuliani on me, but if you're not going to admit to the West doing anything wrong at any point, then frankly you're just in so much denial that you don't know what reality is, or you're just blind. We aren't against combating terrorism. What you're arguing for is the violation of basic human rights. You want the government to have a ridiculous amount of power that they WILL abuse. History has shown that governments cannot be trusted with so much power. I don't know about you, but Robert_de_Sable is certainly an authoritarian and a totalitarian, which basically means he wants to subject his will onto the people without any sort of democratic process, without anyone having a say, and with the government dictating personal freedoms regardless of public opinion or international law. You say, "when they became a terrorist, they gave up their human rights." Again, you're assuming that the people we're torturing ARE actually terrorists (even if they were, evidence has shown that torture only leads to bad intelligence and further recruitment propaganda for terrorist groups as well as further disdain towards the West in the Middle East) even though most of them have never been charged with any crime. Do you understand what this means? THEY HAVEN'T BEEN CHARGED WITH ANY CRIME. Look, this all comes down to what you want to happen to the world. You have the warfare mentality (hence the "keep on fighting Robert" comment) so naturally you view everything as an "it's either us or them!" when in actuality there are resolutions to these issues. If you want to actually stop terrorism, or at least get it to a minimum, we can't be torturing people. You can call this appeasement if you like, but it isn't. What you advocate is ridiculous. You don't understand the role of government in society and you don't understand what government is actually meant to exist for. What would you say if Obama decided to lock you up for the rest of your life hauling rocks up and down hills, just for being right wing?

Economic Left/Right: -2.50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.03 I keep getting drastically different results every time I do this test even though my political beliefs are pretty much the same. I think it is the amount of "strongly agrees" or "strongly disagrees" that you have

You pay no attention to anyone with different opinions of freedom to yours, and you would happily have the government control every aspect of our lives. I wonder what you would say if the government threw you in prison and tortured you for being an authoritarian? It would be somewhat hypocritical of them, but the point still stands. What if Obama suddenly became a dictator and said "every right wing person is going to be executed and put in a labour camp." Would you still be for totalitarianism and authoritarianism then?

Jesus Robert_de_Sable, what would be your ideal government? I'm just wondering if you're consistent in your authoritarian, totalitarian worldview.

The abuse of a totalitarian power is far more worrying than a free populace.

You hit the nail right on the head there. Well said. No. Freedom is more important than safety. So you'd rather die free than live safely? I would rather live in a free society than a totalitarian one. If that means increased risk of death, so be it. I am willing to pay that price for freedom.

You hit the nail right on the head there. Well said. No. Freedom is more important than safety.

It has nothing to do with lack of government, but everything to do with the role of government in privacy of the citizens. The government has no right to be able to read everyone's emails/listen to their phone calls/put cameras in their houses. You can keep with the whole "only wrongdoers need be afraid" bullcrap but if you can't see how easily that can be abused by leadership then you're too far gone in the first place. The facts have shown that governments cannot be trusted with this much power. It inevitably leads to abuse. I know that you're proudly an authoritarian and a totalitarian, so you probably don't care about the people having a voice, but in a democracy - stuff like this cannot be allowed to happen.

Finally someone else that understand logical thinking and philosophy in general. Sly Wizard understands it, in fact I think he has a degree in it, which makes it worse because it shows that he deliberately misrepresents the opposition positions/refuses to listen to the actual arguments.

Australia isn't exactly the apex of freedom either. Ausfalia has been censoring video games since the mid 90s. Conroy also wants to bring in a ridiculous mandatory nationwide filter. So actually, shadow is right. Both America, Australia, and the UK are authoritarian and are becoming increasingly totalitarian with their constant interventions in areas in which government should never have any input whatsoever.

More accurate. Once again, unjustified government power using unjustifiable force to take away the rights and freedoms of the people, whilst at the same time covering for the sick practices endorsed by the previous administration under the guise of "safety".

*points and laughs* That's all I have to add here. Ah, Sly Wizard. Everything you post is either full of blatant strawmen, you calling a logical fallacy where it doesn't apply (therefore strawman), or just pure rhetoric.

Don't treat that like it's a problem the government still needs to address, it's already illegal to teach that. For now.

I have my beliefs, you have yours. God is a reality to me just as much as He isn't to you. I like my beliefs, and while it's clear I'm in the minority here in this vogue of rabid conversion atheism on these boards, I'm sticking to them. And that's fine just don't try to put them into the systems of law and education. Where is it in the systems of law and education? Church and state are legally seperate, but I think we'd have a problem if you had to be Atheist to be in government. No, people in power can believe what they want, just as long as they don't put those religious beliefs into the law. People are trying to teach creationism in science classes and have the Bible as the law of the land etc, and they have been trying to do this since the constitution was initially drafted. It needs to be made clear that this can NEVER happen. Hell, I'm not even from the USA and I don't live there, only reason I engage in these debates is because most people are from the US and I'd be talking with only a few people if I was debating UK politics. Oh and, in the UK we have no separation of Church and state for some reason. We all pay taxes that go to the Church. Fortunately, we don't have as many religious fundamentalists as you and the idea of scripture being the law is something which is ridiculed by the press whenever it is brought up. Thatcher simply evoked God in a speech and she was destroyed by the press for it.

Which is bullshi

If there was a huge global flood wouldn't we expect things to be at different levels in the strata all over the world instead of continuously finding fossils and rocks fitting perfectly into their respective orders of age along the timeline of evolution going back billions of years?

How do they now? Lure people into giving money by playing on their guilt. Stop trying to demonize the church, their intentions are good. No. Helping people and charity yes, but taking advantage of peoples' fears, indoctrinating children with ridiculous stories, trying to force their scripture into law, condemning condom use and refusing to pay taxes at the same time? Not so good. 1. They don't pay taxes because atm they're government funded. 2. As for law, you got me on that one. 3. They don't take advantage of fears, at least not mine. In the years I've attended my church I've never heard a word from them about hell. 4. The church didnt condem condom use, the Pope did. 5. What rediculous stories? There are two kinds of things in the Bible, historical fact, and stories made to teach lessons. If they are government funded, then no, they do not have the right to decide who they can and cannot marry. How are they funded, isn't there the whole first amendment of the constitution?

How do they now? Lure people into giving money by playing on their guilt. Stop trying to demonize the church, their intentions are good. No. Helping people and charity yes, but taking advantage of peoples' fears, indoctrinating children with ridiculous stories, trying to force their scripture into law, condemning condom use and refusing to pay taxes at the same time? Not so good.

And they should also pay taxes. By the same standard, does a shop owner have the right to tell a black person that he can't buy anything from his store because he's black? If yes, well at least you're being consistent. I understand the freedom of institutions standpoint but at the same time rights of individuals are more important in my opinion. EDIT: Actually, the example is slightly different because many people consider marriage to be a *right*, whereas being able to buy from a store arguably isn't. If anything this strengthens the position. Should the Church be able to go against what the government/people deem to be basic human rights?

You know what? This actually seems like a good solution that will favour all parties. Of course, heterosexual and homosexual spouses should have the same benefits and what not, but yeah, good idea. State and church should be separate anyway If this were what gays wanted they could have had it long ago. What they want is for it to be recognized by the Church. If the Church is going to reserve the right to choose who they can and cannot marry then they should start paying taxes. DAMNIT OT JUST AGREED ON A CONTROVERSIAL TOPIC! JUST LEAVE IT!!! :XD: The ending consensus gimmick is only another example of our human need for groupthink.