john5746

And I guess you have the correct analysis? Problem is that too many answers come from this allegorical, vague, pick-and-choose method. Instead of wasting time trying to make your ideas fit into some old texts, better to try and justify your ideas, period. Its fine to read literature and pull some moral lessons from it. Quite another to read fiction as if it is reality and expect that to be some sort of justification for anything. Trying to use an error prone work of fiction to persuade the morality of others is a great obfuscation of reality. Its like relying on a faulty calculator to do math. Not only do you get wrong answers, you don't even learn a method to arrive at answers.

It's religion, you green-blooded...Vulcan. You don't analyse it. The point is you feel accepted in the group. a little star trek humor. People are still human, with emotions that can smother logic at any time.

I would also change the bake sale from white to Asian. Asians not whites I think one hope in regards to admitting African Americans to colleges was that it would have an impact on the culture, to improve further generations. That doesn't appear to be working fast enough, if at all. Cultural issue

This proposal really puts into perspective the kind of sacrifices needed to seriously address the budget issues. I would hope this would provide a great backdrop to see the tax cuts for the wealthy. But, still many will not see, so I think they should provide two more basic proposals. The Republicans should come with one and the Democrats as well. But each proposal must assume the same assumptions, no improved growth should be assumed. Hopefully, that might make it easier to see the effects of tax cuts or keeping services that will continue increasing in debt.

I think this is key to cutting the military. The military is used more for providing American influence in the world, which I think does more good than harm, but just as the Soviets spent themselves into ruin, America is doing it as well. Much better to have a controlled removal than just implode and leave a big void. The ROW will also need to adjust and not just allow the bullies to take over. In regards to the economy and budget cuts: Don't cut taxes US Budget Deficit reduction

Separation of church and state is in place to provide freedom of religious belief. Communist or other dictatorial states are not on the opposite extreme, they are an example of the extreme where state mandates belief.

So, in post #38, you argue that we should follow human nature, then in #40 you argue that human nature is to sin. OK.

I think the two parties have too much of an advantage already, so I don't have a problem with people leaving them. My only issue would be the monies they receive prior to switching. It probably isn't feasible to be required to return it, but at the very least, they should not be able to use it for the election in question.

Also include some red suits to go along with the shovels.

LOL, great quote.

So you don't take any pain medication correct? I guess you don't think women should have pain medication during childbirth, etc.

I think he was being honest and respectable to the man.

Sounds like your basically going in the "God decides what is good" circle. I'd rather not be your pivot man in that deal. From the standpoint of eternity, this life means nothing. To me suffering is useful in the prevention of further damage to someone. I think most people can play god for a moment and think of some simple rules that would make much more sense than what we see. Ex: Rape. Man rapes a woman - she suffers emotionally and physically and may result in the birth of a person more likely to rape. New Rule: Man tries to rape woman - his penis explodes(OK, hurts very much). Suffering for the man. From this suffering, he learns not to try it again and she is saved from suffering. Can we say this would be superior morally to the current situation?

http://www.youtube.com/user/thunderf00t?blend=1&ob=4#p/a/u/1/yQE4orNMDAw I think this video does a decent job of it. Do they have the right? Yes. Were all or even many muslims at fault for 911? No. Does Islam promote freedom as we understand it in the west? I don't think so. 9/11 was an attack on the values that provide the foundation of America, not just some buildings and people. So, it would be stupid to tear down those values and outlaw the mosque. But, those that build it and support it would be wise to be respectful of these values that allow its existence. So, if the people building this mosque think that the prime example of Islam is to support religious intolerance, then I support protesting this site.

I think many people can and have provided some good arguments. But, the question is can you? I doubt it, since anyone who thinks the torture of another human being comes from love can justify anything.

Do atheists utilize resources that they don't pay for? Are they literate, i.e can they function in society? Are they committed to the other citizens, should we be attacked or would they prefer defending another country? Will they swear on the bible to all this?(oops) Sure, there are no costs to allowing uncontrolled immigration, in fact, it creates profit. Any increase in healthcare, education, environment and infrastructure costs, will be offset by the taxes these people pay. In fact, we will be able to provide even more services, like those awesome European countries, while not maintaining low taxes on the poor. Anyone see any problems with this? And that's just the economics.

I guess I got lost in the thread. The analogy portion of my post was meant as a response to you, while the rest was related to anger towards religion in general. While the op was in regards to this site, the original poster in #102 has revealed his idea of anger. I think the original goal post is in question, since there was no anger. Maybe the question should be, why do people see anger in responses to religious questions, when there is none?

Let's remove the preconceptions further, since it is understood by most that deleted = person. "Two aliens met in a New Jersey hotel many decades ago to plan the overthrow of the U.S. No evidence has survived, except a few eyewitnesses, who are now dead. The security of our country is at stake. We must prepare for their return or risk certain death." I think this might be a better analogy. Can someone believe this? If they want. Should we budget any money to fight the aliens or teach about them in school? Hope not. Should we consider people who don't believe this as unpatriotic and only vote for representatives who hold this belief? Well, that would just piss me off.

IMO, it is obvious that as human knowledge increases, superstitious belief decreases, especially when a conflict occurs. Scientists are on the forefront of knowledge, so it would make sense that they would have more conflict with any specific belief claims. Note that biologists have the greatest % as opposed to mathematicians. More conflict, less belief. Even if you they have belief in god, it will tend to be a more general, poetic instance, as opposed to literal interpretations.

Try this one I believe the allure argument, but I am very skeptical in regards to the qualification argument. From my past experience, I think it is due to employers unwilling to invest in their employees.

I think we are in a funk right now, no one wants to jump in and spend in a big way. This has nothing to do with Bush. Obama needs to give big business as well as small business some optimism. I am guessing after the elections, he will feel pressured to give in to the tax break playbook. This would release some of the pent up money that is being stashed and get the recovery moving faster. At this point, I think psychology trumps logic - at least in the short term.

The argument is concerned with evidence, not God itself. If one tries to provide the beauty and goodness of nature as evidence, then they need to also explain the ugly and evil as well. They would hopefully come to the conclusion that they have no evidence.

quite right - Spaghetti Monster, the Boyardee variant, is the correct interpretation. No need to think about the others.

I'll share a personal story in regards to Mormons and religion in general. My best friend in high school was a Mormon and we lived in "The South". I was raised in a "general" christian home - didn't attend church, didn't say grace, except with grandma, basically didn't think about it much. Anyway, my friend asked me if he could visit with some friends of his who were on a mission in the area to "practice". I said sure, come visit. So, they came over and my sister and I served them some lemonade and they played a video about Joseph Smith and the Mormons, then they gave me their bible and talked a little more about their faith. They then expressed how happy they were to receive such a nice greeting, that they were not used to this kind of treatment. They asked if it was because they were with my friend. I told them that a Jehovah's witness had been visiting me recently and that I treated him with respect as well. They then asked "You didn't let him in did you?" LOL This was the beginning of the end of religion for me. As far as religious intolerance, I can't really divide that politically. Most of the baptists I knew would not accept catholics, mormons or jehovah witnesses as christians and they were usually republican. Catholics were more moderate and usually were democrat. But this was a small portion of the country. I think Romney would have beaten McCain if he had been a Protestant. Religion is a very real obstacle in politics.

Why does my right not to see your genitals flopping about in public supersede your right to display them? Why have photo id cards or video surveillance? I'll admit that I do this with nudity, but not with this issue. I would prefer to see less of most people. I just see the need to be able to identify people in public. It is a legitimate public safety concern. I would think banks, schools and any business or roads with video surveillance would require it, so might as well deal with the problem head on. I guess next is just to go towards anarchy, since any rules will slide down the slope towards fascism. Ban nukes, next thing you know they'll come for your BB guns. Ban some drugs and the rest will follow. Rules just give the government more power and they can't enforce them anyway.