ImageImageImageImageImage

Official Politics thread pt. 2

Moderators: j4remi, HerSports85, NoLayupRule, GONYK, Jeff Van Gully, dakomish23, Deeeez Knicks, mpharris36

User avatar
rsavaj
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 24,863
And1: 2,767
Joined: May 09, 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona

Re: Official Politics thread pt. 2 

Post#121 » by rsavaj » Sat Jul 23, 2011 5:55 pm

MF Doom wrote:
HawthorneWingo wrote::noway:


Everything comes from something. Life comes from life. You can't create something out of nothing.


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4E-_DdX8Ke0[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0T1ePceR6c&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL[/youtube]

The ultimate answer that any proper scientist will give you is that we still don't really know for sure, and I don't think we ever will. If the answer provided is "God" or "gods", then we must answer where they came from. It's a fascinating question for sure.

There's some really wonderful information in those videos...I know Dr. Krauss's lecture is long, and the documentary is about an hour as well, but they're really cool.

Stuff like this really makes your head hurt, eh?
User avatar
rsavaj
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 24,863
And1: 2,767
Joined: May 09, 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona

Re: Official Politics thread pt. 2 

Post#122 » by rsavaj » Sat Jul 23, 2011 6:13 pm

mugzi wrote:Image


You can do that with any of the predominant belief systems too. You can find those kind of satirical images about Christianity and Islam too. I'm not going to post them because I don't want to offend anybody.

Besides, I'm not an atheist; I'm a pastafarian.
User avatar
ITGM
RealGM
Posts: 19,987
And1: 9,372
Joined: Jan 16, 2008

Re: Official Politics thread pt. 2 

Post#123 » by ITGM » Sat Jul 23, 2011 6:22 pm

mugzi wrote:Image

:lol:
HarthorneWingo
RealGM
Posts: 97,546
And1: 62,686
Joined: May 16, 2005

Re: Official Politics thread pt. 2 

Post#124 » by HarthorneWingo » Sun Jul 24, 2011 5:14 pm

mugzi wrote:Image



That's cute. I'm sure you have a bumper sticker of that on your Avalanche.

So, Mr. Smarty Pants, prove to me with your superior conservative principles, that God exists.
User avatar
mugzi
General Manager
Posts: 9,210
And1: 1,060
Joined: Sep 29, 2001
Location: SB mountains. 6000 feet up.
       

Re: Official Politics thread pt. 2 

Post#125 » by mugzi » Sun Jul 24, 2011 5:26 pm

Prove to me that he doesn't. You should know since everything about you and your politics says that you think youre God.
Trust but verify.
User avatar
Jmonty580
General Manager
Posts: 8,749
And1: 407
Joined: Jun 08, 2004

Re: Official Politics thread pt. 2 

Post#126 » by Jmonty580 » Sun Jul 24, 2011 5:33 pm

Christians can only prove that God exists by testifying to his goodness and mercy and grace in thier lives. The main element of the religion is faith. I can speak to the supernatural experience, the feeling of God's precense through the Holy spirit as well, but any doubter would probably just say i'm nuts, so back to square one I can prove that God exists. Believe what you want, I'll believe what I know and pray that you too come to know what I know and receive the salvation that I've recieved.
MF Doom
Banned User
Posts: 2,911
And1: 2
Joined: Apr 30, 2011

Re: Official Politics thread pt. 2 

Post#127 » by MF Doom » Sun Jul 24, 2011 5:35 pm

HawthorneWingo wrote:That's cute. I'm sure you have a bumper sticker of that on your Avalanche.

So, Mr. Smarty Pants, prove to me with your superior conservative principles, that God exists.


How did the world come to be? Nothing comes from nothing.
User avatar
mugzi
General Manager
Posts: 9,210
And1: 1,060
Joined: Sep 29, 2001
Location: SB mountains. 6000 feet up.
       

Re: Official Politics thread pt. 2 

Post#128 » by mugzi » Sun Jul 24, 2011 5:40 pm

Lie little, lie big. A liar is a liar.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uv2VjCw8T_c&NR=1[/youtube]

WASHINGTON (AP) - One of President Barack Obama's campaign pledges on taxes went up in puffs of smoke Wednesday.
The largest increase in tobacco taxes took effect despite Obama's promise not to raise taxes of any kind on families earning under $250,000 or individuals under $200,000.

This is one tax that disproportionately affects the poor, who are more likely to smoke than the rich.

To be sure, Obama's tax promises in last year's campaign were most often made in the context of income taxes. Not always. "I can make a firm pledge," he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12. "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." {And you believed that} :lol:

He repeatedly vowed "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime."

Now in office, Obama, who stopped smoking but has admitted he slips now and then, signed a law raising the tobacco tax nearly 62 cents on a pack of cigarettes, to $1.01. Other tobacco products saw similarly steep increases.


Different article same motif.


The first loophole was easy to find: Senator Obama doesn't "count" allowing the Bush tax cuts to lapse as a tax increase. Unless the cuts are re-enacted, rates will automatically return to the 2000 level. Senator Obama claims that letting a tax cut lapse -- allowing the rates to return to a higher levels -- is not actually a "tax increase." It's just the lapsing of a tax cut.

I confess. Senator Obama's two tax promises: to limit tax increases to only those making over $250,000 a year, and to not raise taxes on 95% of "working Americans," intrigued me. As a hard-working small business owner, over the past ten years I've earned from $50,000 to $100,000 per year. If Senator Obama is shooting straight with us, under his presidency I could look forward to paying no additional Federal taxes -- I might even get a break -- and as I struggle to support a family and pay for two boys in college, a reliable tax freeze is nearly as welcome as further tax cuts.

I've worked as the state level media and strategy director on three Presidential election campaigns -- I know how "promises" work -- so I analyzed Senator Obama's promises by looking for loopholes.

The first loophole was easy to find: Senator Obama doesn't "count" allowing the Bush tax cuts to lapse as a tax increase. Unless the cuts are re-enacted, rates will automatically return to the 2000 level. Senator Obama claims that letting a tax cut lapse -- allowing the rates to return to a higher levels -- is not actually a "tax increase." It's just the lapsing of a tax cut.

See the difference?

Neither do I.

When those cuts lapse, my taxes are going up -- a lot -- but by parsing words, Senator Obama justifies his claim that he won't actively raise taxes on 95 percent of working Americans, even while he's passively allowing tax rates to go up for 100% of Americans who actually pay Federal income taxes.

Making this personal, my Federal Income Tax will increase by $3,824 when those tax cuts lapse. That not-insignificant sum would cover a couple of house payments or help my two boys through another month or two of college.

No matter what Senator Obama calls it, requiring us to pay more taxes amounts to a tax increase. This got me wondering what other Americans will have to pay when the tax cuts lapse.
Trust but verify.
User avatar
rsavaj
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 24,863
And1: 2,767
Joined: May 09, 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona

Re: Official Politics thread pt. 2 

Post#129 » by rsavaj » Sun Jul 24, 2011 6:43 pm

MF Doom wrote:
HawthorneWingo wrote:That's cute. I'm sure you have a bumper sticker of that on your Avalanche.

So, Mr. Smarty Pants, prove to me with your superior conservative principles, that God exists.


How did the world come to be? Nothing comes from nothing.


How did God come to be? Nothing comes from nothing.
User avatar
rsavaj
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 24,863
And1: 2,767
Joined: May 09, 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona

Re: Official Politics thread pt. 2 

Post#130 » by rsavaj » Sun Jul 24, 2011 6:48 pm

mugzi wrote:Prove to me that he doesn't. You should know since everything about you and your politics says that you think youre God.


I think that the burden of proof lies on the religious side of the argument. I could very well claim that I believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or Russel's Teapot(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot) or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and there's absolutely no way that you could prove that they don't exist...but that doesn't mean that they do.

Going beyond silly devices like teapots/unicorns/spaghetti monsters, there's no way that someone who believes that their religion is right can disprove the beliefs of somebody in another religion. How do you know that your particular version of "God" is correct? What if there are actually multiple gods, as in the Hindu religion?
MF Doom
Banned User
Posts: 2,911
And1: 2
Joined: Apr 30, 2011

Re: Official Politics thread pt. 2 

Post#131 » by MF Doom » Sun Jul 24, 2011 7:20 pm

rsavaj - Are you agnostic?
User avatar
rsavaj
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 24,863
And1: 2,767
Joined: May 09, 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona

Re: Official Politics thread pt. 2 

Post#132 » by rsavaj » Sun Jul 24, 2011 8:33 pm

MF Doom wrote:rsavaj - Are you agnostic?


I don't like that label, because the popular definition of agnostic is "one who can not be CERTAIN", and if that's the case, then everybody on the planet is an agnostic. Nobody can be absolutely 100% sure that there is or is not some higher power out there. We are all "agnostic" about the existence of "God" or "gods", because we can never be completely, irrefutably certain that they do or do not exist.

Using the analogy of Russel's teapot, I can not be totally sure that there is NOT in fact an invisible teapot orbiting our planet, and neither can you, but would you label yourself as "agnostic" regarding the teapot's existence? Probably not....you would just say that you live your life without the assumption that it IS there. You would pragmatically be "a-teapot-ist".

Bringing it back to religion, we can not know for certain that Zeus/Thor/The Mother Wiccan Goddess/Ra/countless other deities believed in by our ancestors do not exist, but most of us live our lives without the assumption that they are extant.

I extend that line of thinking to today's dogmas.
funkatron101
General Manager
Posts: 7,741
And1: 1,177
Joined: Jan 02, 2008
Location: St. Paul

Re: Official Politics thread pt. 2 

Post#133 » by funkatron101 » Sun Jul 24, 2011 9:09 pm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43873009/ns ... ?GT1=43001

Norway's mass killer pursuing anti-Islam crusade

The blond killer of at least 93 people in Norway sees himself as a righteous crusader on a mission to save European "Christendom" from a tide of Islam.

In a rambling, plagiaristic manifesto posted just before his killing spree began, Andres Behring Breivik says the Knights Templar, a medieval order of crusading warriors, lent modern renown by Dan Brown's best-sellers, had been re-formed in London in 2002.

Two of the founding members were British while one each came from France, Germany, the Netherlands, Greece, Russia, Norway and Serbia, Breivik writes, without naming them.

"The order is to serve as an armed Indigenous Rights Organization and as a Crusader Movement (anti-Jihad movement)," writes Breivik, 32, now in police custody on terrorism charges.


Again, to an unstable man, religion is a dangerous tool.

I agree with rsavaj on the "agnostic" definition. Even the most faithful person can not say with absolute certainty that God exists. Just as an Atheist can not prove with absolute certainty that he does not.

I take issue with the negative slant that Atheism has. Atheism has no baring whatsoever on morality. You can have a strong moral compass and still be an Atheist. You can be a good person, generous, giving, and even spiritual, and still be an Atheist. Saying that you do not believe in a God, or God does not exclude you from these qualities.

The theory of evolution is also not exclusive to Atheist. I know many many Christians who have excepted that evolution did in fact happen. They just happen to believe that it was part of the design. I think that flippant description of Atheism is not only inaccurate, it illustrates how little the general population understands about Atheism, and evolution.
Lattimer wrote:Cracks me up that people still think that Wiggins will be involved in the trade for Love. Wolves are out of their mind if they think they are getting Wiggins for Love.
User avatar
rsavaj
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 24,863
And1: 2,767
Joined: May 09, 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona

Re: Official Politics thread pt. 2 

Post#134 » by rsavaj » Mon Jul 25, 2011 2:47 am

I always liked this quote:

Image
User avatar
mugzi
General Manager
Posts: 9,210
And1: 1,060
Joined: Sep 29, 2001
Location: SB mountains. 6000 feet up.
       

Re: Official Politics thread pt. 2 

Post#135 » by mugzi » Mon Jul 25, 2011 3:34 am

Rsavaj, the burden of proof is equal. You cant have it both ways.

And I like Marcus Aurelius, have you ever read Meditations?
Trust but verify.
User avatar
rsavaj
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 24,863
And1: 2,767
Joined: May 09, 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona

Re: Official Politics thread pt. 2 

Post#136 » by rsavaj » Mon Jul 25, 2011 3:55 am

mugzi wrote:Rsavaj, the burden of proof is equal. You cant have it both ways.

And I like Marcus Aurelius, have you ever read Meditations?


I have not but it has been in my "to-read" queue for quite some time.

I still disagree with you about the burden of proof. We can base our thoughts and beliefs off of what we observe(what we have proof for). Trying to disprove everything we don't have proof for(unicorns, ghosts, auras, spirits, voodoo, leprechauns, fairies, etc.) is not a valid way to form one's world-view, IMO. The burden is on those who believe in such things to provide proof that they do exist; it is not on me to disprove their existence. Does that make sense?(And I don't mean that in any sort of condescending way; I want to make sure that I'm communicating my position clearly, that's all.)
User avatar
mugzi
General Manager
Posts: 9,210
And1: 1,060
Joined: Sep 29, 2001
Location: SB mountains. 6000 feet up.
       

Re: Official Politics thread pt. 2 

Post#137 » by mugzi » Mon Jul 25, 2011 4:02 am

From a cycnics point it makes sense, but as the bible says

Faith in God must be from the heart. It is not merely intellectual. It is spiritual. "For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."
Faith causes you to know in your heart before you see with your eyes. "For we walk by faith, not by sight."


So where's the proof on science to prove the earths 6 billion years old or to prove the big bang?

Its all relative.
Trust but verify.
funkatron101
General Manager
Posts: 7,741
And1: 1,177
Joined: Jan 02, 2008
Location: St. Paul

Re: Official Politics thread pt. 2 

Post#138 » by funkatron101 » Mon Jul 25, 2011 5:45 am

The main fundamental difference between religion and science is that by design, science is in search of proof, whereas religion relies solely on faith.

Throughout history, religious leaders have attempted to answer questions that it had no authority to answer, with little to no references to back up their claims. The Scientific method changed that. It is one of the main reasons why so few accept literal interpretation of the bible today.

Science is not just an idea, or a feeling. It uses hard data to support it. Not only can we see genetic markers that support evolution, we have real life examples of adaptation, natural and artificial selection. I don't have to look any further than the farm that my wife's family owns to see it in action.

Science is on an unwavering quest for the truth, and it unlocks more and more every day. You speak of Muslims needing to get out of the 7th century and adapt with modern times, and yet you argue against science. why?

Instead of feeling threatened by science, religion should embrace it. Religion should be a spiritual path to enlightenment, not a way to answer everything about everything. To do as such is not a fair fight. It only has a few books that are thousands of years old, compared to the constantly growing and adapting field of science and technology. It's a battle that religion can't win.
Lattimer wrote:Cracks me up that people still think that Wiggins will be involved in the trade for Love. Wolves are out of their mind if they think they are getting Wiggins for Love.
duetta
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 31,437
And1: 12,886
Joined: Aug 28, 2002
Location: Patrolling the middle....

Re: Official Politics thread pt. 2 

Post#139 » by duetta » Mon Jul 25, 2011 10:47 am

funkatron101 wrote:Instead of feeling threatened by science, religion should embrace it. Religion should be a spiritual path to enlightenment, not a way to answer everything about everything.


Right. But only to the degree that science doesn't attempt to obliterate spirituality. The problem is that certain advocates for scientism (Dawkins, Hitchens, etc.) are attempting to impose their view of reality on everyone else. And we are not amused, any more than we are amused by Christian or Islamic fundamentalists attempting to impose their comic book style of spirituality and retro politics on the rest of us. And every time some fragment points to a consciousness beyond current understanding, their approach is to either completely ignore it or immediately seek to discredit it.

There's a middle ground in life - and unfortunately, too many for advocates for scienticsm routinely cross it, while refusing to acknowledge their own spectacular lack of objectivity and humongous blind spots.
funkatron101
General Manager
Posts: 7,741
And1: 1,177
Joined: Jan 02, 2008
Location: St. Paul

Re: Official Politics thread pt. 2 

Post#140 » by funkatron101 » Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:22 pm

duetta wrote:
funkatron101 wrote:Instead of feeling threatened by science, religion should embrace it. Religion should be a spiritual path to enlightenment, not a way to answer everything about everything.


Right. But only to the degree that science doesn't attempt to obliterate spirituality. The problem is that certain advocates for scientism (Dawkins, Hitchens, etc.) are attempting to impose their view of reality on everyone else. And we are not amused, any more than we are amused by Christian or Islamic fundamentalists attempting to impose their comic book style of spirituality and retro politics on the rest of us. And every time some fragment points to a consciousness beyond current understanding, their approach is to either completely ignore it or immediately seek to discredit it.

There's a middle ground in life - and unfortunately, too many for advocates for scienticsm routinely cross it, while refusing to acknowledge their own spectacular lack of objectivity and humongous blind spots.

I guess this is where I find it hard to relate. My own bias comes into play here. While I can't definitively say that God does not exist, and have thoughts and theories on the Afterlife, I do identify with Atheism more than any specific religion. I hope I don't stick my foot in my mouth with this and have a barrage of examples thrown back at me, but I've never really heard of a case of "Extreme Atheism" causing violence and death to the degree that organized religion has. I see no incentive to kill in the name of Atheism, because Atheists value life on this earth above anything else.

So I personally don't see Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens as threats to my beliefs any more than a priest, a rabbi, etc. Which is to say that I can respect and appreciate certain aspects to all of their arguments, but can not agree to every point they stress.

I would also like to point out that a true scientist does not dismiss an idea that he/she can not prove to be false. This is why I respect and admire what Carl Sagan did. Many assume that he was an Atheist. He wasn't. He didn't believe in a Christian God, but he could never claim that "God" does not exist, only that he saw no evidence to support it. He was the ultimate truth seeker and was willing to embrace any explanation as long as the evidence supported it.
Lattimer wrote:Cracks me up that people still think that Wiggins will be involved in the trade for Love. Wolves are out of their mind if they think they are getting Wiggins for Love.

Return to New York Knicks