Religion is useless. [Archive] - Bullshit.com Forums

Superslayer

12-28-2006, 02:03 PM

I don't understand wy people still have religion? Wy do they keep it? A lot's of people doesn't have any religion (like me) and they are just fine. Maybe they are lazy, and when they think "Who created the Univurse?" maybe they think "God did that, it's not my problem" so are they done? Religion does, in some cases, also prevent big progress in science, so if just could give up religion, and care about what's acctually good for people, wouldn't everything be much better then?:o

ajk

12-28-2006, 05:13 PM

ohreally

12-28-2006, 05:43 PM

I disagree. I think we need religion. Without it we get what we have now, people just doing whatever they want without a care for how others are affected by them.
For someones own sake (those who need personal laws because they have issues), maybe they do need religion.
My opinion though is ultimately - religion cannot be integrated into law - nor shall any particular values purely based on entities.

There ARE multiple religions. There is religions beyond yours and everybody elses - and many of those which feel are the right one. You obviously can't combine all religious values and expect to have the same result. The US Government shouldn't bow to any religion to create/modify/remove laws - nor base laws off of religious opinions.

Ausinus

12-28-2006, 05:54 PM

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor prohibiting free exercise thereof"

Ohreally is exactly right. We need to make laws so that in most cases they universally apply to everyone regardless of their faith or beliefs. This is why we cannot integrate the junky laws such as "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" or "a man shalt not lie with another man as he does a woman", because they are not equal for everyone in society.

Additionally, I also believe that religions should NOT be given state money for this reason.

danfromri

12-28-2006, 08:00 PM

Look on the bright side, when all of the people are in church you can go loot their homes and molest their pets.

ohreally

12-28-2006, 11:07 PM

Look on the bright side, when all of the people are in church you can go loot their homes and molest their pets.
I'll go for the looting... but I think I'll pass on the molesting of the pets part :p
For all we'll know - ajk may skip church and molest his pet - and he'll blame porn. Then he'll blame evil and Satan for his doings. :p

Ausinus

12-28-2006, 11:11 PM

ohreally

12-28-2006, 11:14 PM

Speaking of christian items, I have a funny story about holy water.

My greek aunt went to a church and bought some holy water. Now the custom of the orthodox church is to sprinkle holy water around the house with your fingers. So one day my cousin came home from school and was really thirsty so he accidentally drank the holy water. Once he found out what it was he filled it up with tap water, and my aunt still sprinkled that water around the house. :D
:D Haha I bet she woke up the next day feeling good, "Boy that Holy Water works like a charm!" :p
(Since she probably feels all secure with the holy water even though the holy water thing is a big mind game)

Ausinus

12-28-2006, 11:16 PM

True, true :D

Superslayer

12-29-2006, 03:39 AM

I think religion is wierd because in most cases just is an illusion. Millions of christian people never had a real revelation. Without religion would it be less things to dissagree on.:o

ajk

12-29-2006, 04:54 AM

There's been plenty of experiences out there, you just may not be aware of them. But they do happen.

Ausinus

12-29-2006, 05:16 AM

They are all hallucinations, wishful thinking or some other psychological thingy.

ajk

12-29-2006, 05:35 AM

They are all hallucinations, wishful thinking or some other psychological thingy.

That's a bunch of crap. You can say what you want, but the fact remains it does happen. You're just trying to cover up what you know deep down is true.

Ausinus

12-29-2006, 05:42 AM

I suppose you think there are no atheists in foxholes either. FUCK YOU. The only thing I know deep down is that all religion is a lie.

Superslayer

12-29-2006, 09:51 AM

I couldn't agree more.:D

ajk

12-29-2006, 02:32 PM

I suppose you think there are no atheists in foxholes either. FUCK YOU. The only thing I know deep down is that all religion is a lie.

Right, just keep telling yourself that.

theicidal maniac

12-29-2006, 03:08 PM

Right, just keep telling yourself that.

See the funny thing is, if you are right, we can't find out until we die, and if you are wrong, we'll never know, cuz we'll be dead.

But if we are right, we should be able to find out NOW! So then, let's take the bible flood for example....hmmm NOT supported by geologists. Well how about the abrupt creation described in Genesis...hmmmmm, NOT supported by biologists or geologists. Ok, how about Jonas living in the whale's belly....hmmmm NOT supported by common sense or by biologists. Baby born to a woman without a man's sperm...NOT possible. Well, ok...how about the claim that God LITERALLY authored the bible through divine inspiration. OH, apparently all the books have different writing styles and writing modes...hmmmm, I guess that's why you don't like facts.

ajk

12-29-2006, 03:38 PM

Baby born to a woman without a man's sperm...NOT possible.

As I've said before, with God anything and I mean anything is possible.

Ausinus

12-29-2006, 03:43 PM

There is a viable secular explanation in the virtually impossible event that it did happen. Parthenogenesis anyone?

Anything is possible with god. Ok then, why cant he interfere with our free will then?

theicidal maniac

12-29-2006, 04:12 PM

As I've said before, with God anything and I mean anything is possible.

Yes, you've said a lot of things that have no bearing on reality or any substance whatsoever.

"Can God make a burrito so big even HE can't eat it" - Homer Simpson

Superslayer

12-29-2006, 04:35 PM

God punish the people that doesn't belive in him, but he doesn't leave us anything that acctually prove his excistance.

That not really the kind of person that i want to controll my destiny...

General Septem

12-29-2006, 08:10 PM

The notion that religion was only created to explain the unexplainable is complete and total bullshit. Never once have I personally said the origin of life or anything doesn't matter because "God did it". Yes, God created everything, but it would be interesting to know how He did it and what exactly He created, for example things we can only see under a microscope.

Ausinus

12-29-2006, 08:28 PM

The notion that religion was only created to explain the unexplainable is complete and total bullshit.

Your right. Another reason it was created was for control over the population.

Never once have I personally said the origin of life or anything doesn't matter because "God did it". Yes, God created everything, but it would be interesting to know how He did it and what exactly He created, for example things we can only see under a microscope.

Interesting how he is loving yet he creates diseases such as children's leukemia.

who897

12-29-2006, 08:30 PM

The real purpose behind religion is for some elitest to make a shit ton of money outta other peoples ignorance.

General Septem

12-29-2006, 08:32 PM

Your right. Another reason it was created was for control over the population.

Kindly explain why I'm an anarchist then.

Interesting how he is loving yet he creates diseases such as children's leukemia.

Perhaps God did not create these diseases, but they are just a result of the imperfect world we condemned ourselves to for the short lives we live.

Ausinus

12-29-2006, 08:36 PM

Kindly explain why I'm an anarchist then.

You have no faith in the government and veiw it as controlling. I could say the same of religion.

Perhaps God did not create these diseases, but they are just a result of the imperfect world we condemned ourselves to for the short lives we live.

So basically we get disease because its our fault? Couldnt an omnipotent god do the Samantha Stephens thing and magic disease away?

General Septem

12-29-2006, 08:40 PM

You have no faith in the government and veiw it as controlling. I could say the same of religion.

Religion is not controlling, governments are. Religion is a system of beliefs that people live by. They have no authority over anyone. They're not going to come in with police officers and harass you for doing something wrong.

So basically we get disease because its our fault? Couldnt an omnipotent god do the Samantha Stephens thing and magic disease away?

God will cure every disease, but not yet. God could do a lot of things but none of it would really matter.

Ausinus

12-29-2006, 08:43 PM

Religion is not controlling, governments are. Religion is a system of beliefs that people live by. They have no authority over anyone. They're not going to come in with police officers and harass you for doing something wrong.

Ok, you follow the Catholic Church right? Which has the potential to be a govt. in itself. Indeed it once did have a force who harrased you for doing something wrong. The Inquisition.

God will cure every disease, but not yet. God could do a lot of things but none of it would really matter.

Then he isnt all loving. Im sure a loving father would try his hardest to cure his children's ailments.

There is a word for that; procrastination.

General Septem

12-29-2006, 08:49 PM

Ok, you follow the Catholic Church right? Which has the potential to be a govt. in itself. Indeed it once did have a force who harrased you for doing something wrong. The Inquisition.

And I don't believe they were right in doing so. I believe in the Catholic Church as a Church, not a government.

Then he isnt all loving. Im sure a loving father would try his hardest to cure his children's ailments.

There is a word for that; procrastination.

No, it's called patience. God knows all of our diseases will one day be cured.

As a people, the diseases have the potential to make us stronger. They pull us together to work for a cure. Indeed, it was God working through us, through our love, to cure the diseases we already can cure. God could easily snap His fingers and make all the bad things go away, but what would that do for us as a whole?

Ausinus

12-29-2006, 09:03 PM

No, it's called patience. God knows all of our diseases will one day be cured.

As a people, the diseases have the potential to make us stronger. They pull us together to work for a cure. Indeed, it was God working through us, through our love, to cure the diseases we already can cure. God could easily snap His fingers and make all the bad things go away, but what would that do for us as a whole?

So we have to suffer horrible diseases and war to learn lessons? Pfft mate, It would make life a lot more enjoyable.

MrBirdy

12-30-2006, 01:02 AM

I disagree. I think we need religion. Without it we get what we have now, people just doing whatever they want without a care for how others are affected by them. If you go back to the 1950's, things were better in ways. The Divorce rate was much smaller then compared to now. Obviously some things have changed for the better of course (less segregation in society), but people weren't as out of control as they tend to be today.

All of this of course began during the sexual revolution. Ever since that point things have fallen apart. We have no moral backbone anymore, which would usually go along with religion.

SEXIST!!
how dare you blame the sexual revolution for coincidences....

ajk

12-30-2006, 01:08 AM

SEXIST!!
how dare you blame the sexual revolution for coincidences....

You and your coincidences. Everything is a coincidence to you isn't it? The Divorce Rate was much much lower before the sexual revolution. If the fact that it's gone up sense is a coincidence, then I'm not really a virgin.

Superslayer

12-30-2006, 03:16 AM

[QOUTE/GRNERAL SEPTEM] The notion that religion was only created to explain the unexplainable is complete and total bullshit.

Oh really? Maybe not in theese days but when religion was created in first place was it defernitly for explain the unexplainable.

Ausinus

12-30-2006, 03:16 AM

The sexual revolution was one of the great social changes. It gave us the freedom we have today. Of course, ajk voted for Hitler so comment pouvez-vous vous attendre à ce que le bâtard en dise n'importe quoi de bon ?

General Septem

12-30-2006, 08:06 AM

So we have to suffer horrible diseases and war to learn lessons? Pfft mate, It would make life a lot more enjoyable.

A lot easier you mean. A lot of things would make life easier. It's our hardships that bring us together as a people. You should try and see the positive in the negative.

Ausinus

12-30-2006, 08:08 AM

"Christianity teaches us that we can make God happy by being miserable ourselves..."

-Rober Ingersoll

Its bullshit thats what it is.

General Septem

12-30-2006, 08:15 AM

"Christianity teaches us that we can make God happy by being miserable ourselves..."

The funny thing is that if everyone did the work of God, we'd all be a lot happier.

Ausinus

12-30-2006, 08:17 AM

Yeah, like Mother Theresa's gang of fundies and those Catholic missionaies are making people happier.

General Septem

12-30-2006, 08:31 AM

Yeah, like Mother Theresa's gang of fundies and those Catholic missionaies are making people happier.

They're helping people in need, which is a lot more than you've ever done. And kindly stop referring to anyone who believes in Jesus a "fundie". It sounds like you don't even know what you're talking about.

Ausinus

12-30-2006, 08:45 AM

Mother Theresa's order gets millions of dollars and doenst spend it on charity, they send it to the church instead. Also, those missionaries in Africa is helping the spreading of AIDS. They are more interested in converting people to catholicism than helping people.

I may not be in a foreign country, but I choose to help in the way I can best; donating money to real charites like amnesty.

ajk

12-30-2006, 03:10 PM

The sexual revolution was one of the great social changes. It gave us the freedom we have today.

No the sexual revolution was one of the worst social changes, and has given us the license (not freedom) to do the terrible things that we do today (abortion, having sex with whomever when ever).

General Septem

12-30-2006, 04:31 PM

Mother Theresa's order gets millions of dollars and doenst spend it on charity, they send it to the church instead. Also, those missionaries in Africa is helping the spreading of AIDS. They are more interested in converting people to catholicism than helping people.

Oh, is they? If the Africans listened to them, they wouldn't be having sex at all unless it was just one partner, so they wouldn't be sleeping around and spreading it. You can't blame someone if only half of his message is being listened to.

theicidal maniac

12-30-2006, 04:33 PM

No the sexual revolution was one of the worst social changes, and has given us the license (not freedom) to do the terrible things that we do today (abortion, having sex with whomever when ever).

so i suppose that when doctors provide medicine to patients they are giving the patients a "license to overdose?" Let's ban medicine!!!

theicidal maniac

12-30-2006, 04:35 PM

They are more interested in converting people to catholicism than helping people.

That's what a church IS, Ausi...

ajk

12-30-2006, 04:52 PM

so i suppose that when doctors provide medicine to patients they are giving the patients a "license to overdose?" Let's ban medicine!!!

No because like almost anything else, when used properly it can be good

Ausinus

12-30-2006, 04:53 PM

Just like abortion. When used for the correct circumstances it can be the right decision.

General Septem

12-30-2006, 04:55 PM

Just like abortion. When used for the correct circumstances it can be the right decision.

No, because the purpose of medicine, when properly used, is never to kill another human being.

theicidal maniac

12-30-2006, 04:57 PM

No, because the purpose of medicine, when properly used, is never to kill another human being.

Except for lethal injection right? Or when American agents poison leaders of other countries? Except for those times right?

General Septem

12-30-2006, 05:00 PM

Except for lethal injection right? Or when American agents poison leaders of other countries? Except for those times right?

No, I am against the death penalty, so that is not a correct use of the medicine. As for the leaders of other countries, if they willfully pose a threat to others and it's the only way to stop them, I'm all for it. Unborn babies seldom have the chance to willfully pose a threat to anyone.

theicidal maniac

12-30-2006, 05:06 PM

No, I am against the death penalty, so that is not a correct use of the medicine.

See the arrogance here...I am not for it, so it is wrong.

Ausinus

12-30-2006, 05:07 PM

What about euthanasia? Thats a good use of medicine to kill a person.

LolPwned

12-30-2006, 07:45 PM

No the sexual revolution was one of the worst social changes, and has given us the license (not freedom) to do the terrible things that we do today (abortion, having sex with whomever when ever).

You are wrong. The sexual revolution has showed us that we can use the free will given that we have. If anything it is a testament to god's work, that humans can freely enjoy themselves.

As for abortion, I agree it is not the best course of action, but I would prefer that women can choose what to do with their bodies rather than be forced to have a pregnancy. God will forgive the woman regardless.

Ausinus

12-30-2006, 08:04 PM

I didnt know pro choice christians existed.:D

LolPwned

12-30-2006, 08:06 PM

They do. Its just the majority are pro life.

ajk

12-30-2006, 08:52 PM

You are wrong. The sexual revolution has showed us that we can use the free will given that we have. If anything it is a testament to god's work, that humans can freely enjoy themselves.

No it showed us that we can take marriage for granted, and that it means nothing at all.

As for abortion, I agree it is not the best course of action, but I would prefer that women can choose what to do with their bodies rather than be forced to have a pregnancy. God will forgive the woman regardless.

Not neccessarily IMO though I may be wrong. If the woman herself is able to admit to herself she did wrong later down the line, then God would forgive her. But if she never does admit to her mistake, then I don't know if God would, though again maybe I'm wrong. I don't know and neither do you.

General Septem

12-30-2006, 09:01 PM

As for abortion, I agree it is not the best course of action, but I would prefer that women can choose what to do with their bodies rather than be forced to have a pregnancy. God will forgive the woman regardless.

I'm not debating whether she should have the choice or not. I'm just saying it's wrong. See, everyone's arguing that it should be the woman's choice, but I never said whether it should or shouldn't be. I'm just saying it's wrong, and I want people to stop lying about the fact that an unborn baby is a human being, an unborn baby is not his or her mother's body but his/her own, and that to kill an unborn baby is every bit as wrong as murdering anyone else. Choice doesn't even play into my argument.

ajk

12-30-2006, 09:09 PM

I understand what you are saying, but you sort of do end up on the anti choice side of the fence in saying that. I know you didn't actually say that, but the position goes with the territory. Unless by the woman's choice you mean in terms of what to do with the baby once born. Which would be altogether different.

General Septem

12-30-2006, 09:13 PM

ajk

12-30-2006, 09:23 PM

My biggest problems are the lying regarding abortion in general, and what many mothers are depriving themselves of.

Yeah there is a ton of it going on, twisting the truth to suit their own needs. Agreed too on the mothers part. Not only do they deprive themselves, but they deprive the world as well of an artist, an entertainer, etc etc.

LolPwned

12-30-2006, 10:06 PM

I agree with Ausinus, that is purely conjecture. We have free will, and god will forgive the mother.

who897

12-30-2006, 10:07 PM

To be honest my biggest problem is not with the unborn babies being the victims of the abortion, because in my opinion they're probably better off going straight to Heaven than having a mother that loves them enough to kill them. My biggest problems are the lying regarding abortion in general, and what many mothers are depriving themselves of. I feel worse for the mothers than I do for the babies, but at the same time I can't say I feel all too sorry for them.

Lying isn't one of my specialties, but I don't feel that a fetus is a child, I don't think abortion is murder, I do not thing abortion is wrong, I do think abortion is the only 100% effective form of birth control.

General Septem

12-30-2006, 10:14 PM

Lying isn't one of my specialties, but I don't feel that a fetus is a child, I don't think abortion is murder, I do not thing abortion is wrong, I do think abortion is the only 100% effective form of birth control.

A fetus is not a child, nor are you or I. All three are human beings, however. If I wanted to say I didn't believe you were human I'd have as much to back it up with as anyone has to say they don't believe a fetus is a human being.

Superslayer

01-02-2007, 03:35 PM

A fetus is not a human being. It's like saying that a seed is a plant, becouse a fetus can't breath, can't think, have no arms, no legs, it's not even always sure that it's going to be a human being!

But that doesn't mean I am for abortation. I would better see a women that born her child and adobt it away or something, but abortation would still be an option.

General Septem

01-02-2007, 06:56 PM

A fetus is not a human being.

This statement has been proven wrong genetically.

It's like saying that a seed is a plant,

The seed is more akin to the ovum than the fetus.

becouse a fetus can't breath, can't think, have no arms, no legs

You sound like what most Americans thought of the Russians during the Cold War. A phenomenon we make fun of nowadays with sarcastic quotes such as "in Soviet Russia, condoms fuck YOU!!!".

, it's not even always sure that it's going to be a human being!

It's not a human being because it's not sure it's going to be a human being? Does this make sense to anyone else?

Ausinus

01-02-2007, 08:06 PM

Yes, I "think" it means that the possibility of its survival is uncertain. That, or the fact the foetus is inviable outside the mother. Im not honestly sure :p

Superslayer

01-03-2007, 03:39 AM

Precisley:D

wawatasei

01-29-2007, 06:57 PM

so we all know the power of the mind...words and what we think..thats what the powers to be want from each one of you...dah wake up stand up take a look around

who897

01-29-2007, 07:06 PM

No, the powers that be want me to do a shit ton of paper work. LOL it's a canadian goose.

yea_thats_right1

01-29-2007, 07:16 PM

I disagree. I think we need religion. Without it we get what we have now, people just doing whatever they want without a care for how others are affected by them. If you go back to the 1950's, things were better in ways. The Divorce rate was much smaller then compared to now. Obviously some things have changed for the better of course (less segregation in society), but people weren't as out of control as they tend to be today.

All of this of course began during the sexual revolution. Ever since that point things have fallen apart. We have no moral backbone anymore, which would usually go along with religion.

thats because religion is a way to scare someone into being good... not teach them why doing this the "right way" is good for them..... you had people back then who were too afraid to fucking breathe for fear that the "almighty and powerful oz..oops meant GOD" is going to strike them down.... uh bullshit anyone? sorry kid your wrong.

theicidal maniac

01-29-2007, 08:01 PM

thats because religion is a way to scare someone into being good... not teach them why doing this the "right way" is good for them..... you had people back then who were too afraid to fucking breathe for fear that the "almighty and powerful oz..oops meant GOD" is going to strike them down.... uh bullshit anyone? sorry kid your wrong.

Indeed...being good to avoid punishment doesn't make you a good person, it makes you a conditioned person. Being good because it makes the world a more pleasant place makes you a good person

ajk

01-29-2007, 08:13 PM

Really you can do both. When I do good, I am not neccessarily thinking that it's going to help my chances of going to Heaven at the end of my life, but rather it's the right thing to do at that moment in time. The fact that it increases my chances of going to Heaven is just a bonus.

ohreally

01-29-2007, 08:41 PM

When I do good, I am not neccessarily thinking that it's going to help my chances of going to Heaven at the end of my life

The fact that it increases my chances of going to Heaven is just a bonus.

Contradiction anyone?

ajk

01-29-2007, 08:51 PM

It's not a contradiction at all, if I was only thinking about my salvation when I did something good that would be different.

ohreally

01-29-2007, 10:12 PM

It's not a contradiction at all, if I was only thinking about my salvation when I did something good that would be different.

You don't know the deeds you do are factually going to save you. Sounds like you like to play God. Then again, you try to be the commander of Women, being a sexist and all - so I'm not shocked really.

theicidal maniac

01-29-2007, 11:54 PM

It's not a contradiction at all, if I was only thinking about my salvation when I did something good that would be different.

so you are admitting that you don't need religious motive to be good. So why follow one?

ajk

01-30-2007, 01:22 AM

You don't know the deeds you do are factually going to save you. Sounds like you like to play God. Then again, you try to be the commander of Women, being a sexist and all - so I'm not shocked really.

No women play God by murdering a person when it's not their time to die yet. Same goes for any man who goes along with it, without objection.

Ausinus

01-30-2007, 01:33 AM

No women play God by murdering a person when it's not their time to die yet. Same goes for any man who goes along with it, without objection.

No proof that it is a person = we can we discount that argument.

Interesting how the bible forbids murder, but does not define murder.

ajk

01-30-2007, 01:57 AM

There's plenty of proof, you just ignore it.

Ausinus

01-30-2007, 01:58 AM

There's plenty of proof, you just ignore it.

What proof?

ajk

01-30-2007, 02:00 AM

I've explained myself enough to you, many times over. So you know damn well what proof I'm talking about.

Ausinus

01-30-2007, 02:04 AM

I've explained myself enough to you, many times over. So you know damn well what proof I'm talking about.

If by "proof" you mean "the body cannot function without a soul" then it isnt proof. It is a statement with no grounds. You have never seen a live body without a soul, so you cant make that statement. In fact there is no way to detect if the soul is actually there, so we are not even sure that we DO in fact have souls.

I asked for evidence of a soul, not for an unbased statement.

ajk

01-30-2007, 02:17 AM

It's not just the soul, it's the DNA thing too. Not to mention that again we grow in the womb unlike any other organism (even that of animals).

Ausinus

01-30-2007, 02:19 AM

It's not just the soul, it's the DNA thing too. Not to mention that again we grow in the womb unlike any other organism (even that of animals).

I am asking for evidence of the soul. You cannot make a legitimate statement without establishing the existence of something prior to that. I am asking for actual evidence for the soul.

Excuse me, every placental mammal grows in pretty much the same way. Same cycles, same birth method, nursing, etc.

So does that mean a human clone would be soulless?

ajk

01-30-2007, 02:20 AM

Excuse me, every placental mammal grows in pretty much the same way. Same cycles, same birth method, nursing, etc.

What do you mean same cycles? Last time I checked other animals don't take 9 months before being born.

Ausinus

01-30-2007, 02:24 AM

What do you mean same cycles? Last time I checked other animals don't take 9 months before being born.

So you are using gestational period as an argument for the soul? What a crock of shit. The Common Chimpanzee's gestational period is eight to nine months. Virtually the same as humans. Are they people?

ajk

01-30-2007, 02:27 AM

No of course not, but again we are totally different from them. We are unique, in the same way all animals, mammals are.

ajk

01-30-2007, 02:29 AM

Let me ask you this, do you consider an animal or mammal whatever, as such while inside the mother?

Ausinus

01-30-2007, 02:30 AM

No of course not, but again we are totally different from them. We are unique, in the same way all animals, mammals are.

Totally different, really? Chimpanzees have less than 1% genetic difference from us, did you know? We really arent that different from them, save in cognitive advancement.

Now you have been avoiding my question. I asked for evidence for the soul itself, not for you to begin drawing fallacious and unbacked connections. You cannot say the soul is unique to us when its existence is not even proven.

Ausinus

01-30-2007, 02:30 AM

Let me ask you this, do you consider an animal or mammal whatever, as such while inside the mother?

Yes and No, I consider it a foetus or embryo belonging to that species. I know where you are going with this, we are debating personhood, not humanity.

ajk

01-30-2007, 02:33 AM

Now you have been avoiding my question. I asked for evidence for the soul itself, not for you to begin drawing fallacious and unbacked connections. You cannot say the soul is unique to us when its existence is not even proven.

The soul cannot be proven, but just the same it does exist. God is on a separate plane from the rest of us here on Earth. He can go beyond the physical realm and often does.

ajk

01-30-2007, 02:34 AM

Yes and No, I consider it a foetus or embryo belonging to that species. I know where you are going with this, we are debating personhood, not humanity.

What I was trying to get at, was if you can consider an animal as such before it's born, why can't a human be given the same consideration?

Ausinus

01-30-2007, 02:34 AM

The soul cannot be proven, but just the same it does exist. God is on a separate plane from the rest of us here on Earth. He can go beyond the physical realm and often does.

How can a metaphysical construct still remain the source of our consciousness? It has to be matter or energy in order to influence matter or energy.

ajk

01-30-2007, 02:35 AM

Not if you're God it doesn't, He knows no boundaries.

Ausinus

01-30-2007, 02:35 AM

What I was trying to get at, was if you can consider an animal as such before it's born, why can't a human be given the same consideration?

We are debating personhood, not humanity.

Let me ask you this. If a robot gained the ability to think for itself, and experience emotion, would you call it a person?

Ausinus

01-30-2007, 02:36 AM

Not if you're God it doesn't, He knows no boundaries.

So how come a metaphysical influence upon matter has never been observed?

ajk

01-30-2007, 02:37 AM

We are debating personhood, not humanity.

Personhood IS humanity.

Ausinus

01-30-2007, 02:37 AM

Personhood IS humanity.

Answer the question. Personhood is not strictly confined to humanity.

ajk

01-30-2007, 02:38 AM

So how come a metaphysical influence upon matter has never been observed?

It has, and people have noted it. You just choose not to believe them.

ajk

01-30-2007, 02:38 AM

Answer the question. Personhood is not strictly confined to humanity.

Ok then define humanity.

Ausinus

01-30-2007, 02:38 AM

It has, and people have noted it. You just choose not to believe them.

Name one that has not been falsified.

ajk

01-30-2007, 02:39 AM

Name one you can prove is not true. And no UFO's or little kids seeing spooks does not count.

Ausinus

01-30-2007, 02:41 AM

Ok then define humanity.

The condition or quality of being human.

Whereas a person is an individual, rational and self conscious being.

ajk

01-30-2007, 02:41 AM

So then a baby just born is not human then, because he or she cannot be rational.

Ausinus

01-30-2007, 02:45 AM

Name one you can prove is not true. And no UFO's or little kids seeing spooks does not count.

What are you looking for? Visions, magicians, psychics? Every "magician" uses a trick that the French term sleight of hand, nothing more than cheap feats of dexterity and distraction. Here is a list of some epileptics that have had "religious visions"

Ezekiel
Paul of Tarsus
Muhammed
Saint Birgitta
Joan d'Arc
Emanuel Swedenborg
Ellen G White

Ausinus

01-30-2007, 02:46 AM

So then a baby just born is not human then, because he or she cannot be rational.

Ah but they can reason, to a small small extent, which is rationalising.

theicidal maniac

01-30-2007, 03:39 AM

look AJK, your memories are formed in the brain the way a semiconductor "remember" things...that is electrical impulses follow specific patterns that trigger or turn off other impulses in an infinite number of possible combinations. Except your brain can rearrange it's own structure, and it adapts to the thoughts you think most often, and the emotions you feel most often. That is why the things you think about are easier to recall and also why a person with depression stays depressed unless they actively try to change their thoughts. You think about God a lot and so you see what you interpret as evidence of him everywhere, just as a muslim sees evidence for Allah everywhere, and a mormon sees what he interprets as proof of his church everywhere he looks. It's the same reason a person with OCD sees the quantity 3 everywhere he looks.

Your memories are STORED in the brain

If you die, your brain dies, and so does your ability to THINK.

Even if there was a soul that escaped and SOMEHOW could route electrical impulses without physical conduits, it wouldn't matter. It still wouldn't be YOU. Because when the brain dies your memories are lost forever. Also your instincts. Without instincts or memories you are less than a vegetable.

General Septem

01-30-2007, 07:24 AM

Ah but they can reason, to a small small extent, which is rationalising.

There's no difference between a baby three seconds before birth and a baby three seconds after birth. Really.

General Septem

01-30-2007, 07:25 AM

The condition or quality of being human.

Whereas a person is an individual, rational and self conscious being.

You're defining a person, not a human.

I hope I don't have to say it again.

wawatasei

01-30-2007, 10:37 AM

first you are surrounded by a good energy[angels,carma,innocence]as you creep into the world of want, you do it in morally good thoughts or harmful thoughts the harmfull thoughts seperate you from the protection of the good energy leaving harmfull energy to move in and stick to you [this is in a collective community level also that leaves many innocent ones suffer as a result of others

theicidal maniac

01-30-2007, 06:33 PM

who897

01-30-2007, 07:05 PM

There's no difference between a baby three seconds before birth and a baby three seconds after birth. Really.

Sure there is. The "baby" is the one that passed through the birth canal or was cut out through C-section. Also, the "baby" is breathing air...once you get the gunk outta the nose.

theicidal maniac

01-30-2007, 07:26 PM

there IS however quite a large difference between a few cells three days AFTER CONCEPTION and a baby 3 days after birth. Don't try to change things up.

ajk

01-30-2007, 08:10 PM

No there isn't. Again, it does not matter what stage of development the child is in, it is still a human being. From the point of conception right till the very end.

beatniks-and-politics

01-30-2007, 09:09 PM

No there isn't. Again, it does not matter what stage of development the child is in, it is still a human being. From the point of conception right till the very end.

Although I agree with your statement, an embryo isnt actually considered a fetus untill the first bone cells develop. It is then considered a human being. I think it is completely unreasonable to kill the embryo though, only because it has the potential to become a person with completely unique thoughts.

ajk

01-30-2007, 10:30 PM

I'm not sure I understand here. You said you agreed with the statement, and then went on to say why I was wrong. You can't agree and disagree at the same time.

beatniks-and-politics

01-30-2007, 10:49 PM

I'm not sure I understand here. You said you agreed with the statement, and then went on to say why I was wrong. You can't agree and disagree at the same time.

I agree with the fact it is still living from conception to birth, but it is not actually considered human until it develops bone cells. I am not dis-agreeing with the idea of abortion being wrong, just when the embryo is actually considered human

Ausinus

01-30-2007, 11:51 PM

Well proving the foetus' humanity wont actually have any effect on the current abortion law. Sucks for you.

who897

01-30-2007, 11:52 PM

I agree with the fact it is still living from conception to birth, but it is not actually considered human until it develops bone cells. I am not dis-agreeing with the idea of abortion being wrong, just when the embryo is actually considered human

Every time a chick has her period, every time a guy beats off (or has nocturnal emissions) there is potential for a human life.....so yall are about retarded for thinking that terminating a pregnancy just because it could, possibly, develop into a full grown human being, is wrong. Why not just say every time one of our skin cells falls off we are wrong, because that cell which died and fell off contained all my DNA, and could possible be used to create another human. So, I implore you to lick my sweaty taint you pro-choice, religious, fuck wits. My name is WHO897 and I approve this message.

Ausinus

01-30-2007, 11:57 PM

who897

01-30-2007, 11:59 PM

Go have some Capt. Morgan and then come back, we can understand you better then :D

I just started :D Well, I am sure you at least understood those pro-life, religious, fuck wits should lick my sweaty taint.

Ausinus

01-31-2007, 12:02 AM

I just started :D Well, I am sure you at least understood those pro-life, religious, fuck wits should lick my sweaty taint.

Lol. :D You are the only person I know who is more lucid when they are drunk. Ausinus 13, Who 3. :p

beatniks-and-politics

01-31-2007, 12:07 AM

Every time a chick has her period, every time a guy beats off (or has nocturnal emissions) there is potential for a human life.....so yall are about retarded for thinking that terminating a pregnancy just because it could, possibly, develop into a full grown human being, is wrong. Why not just say every time one of our skin cells falls off we are wrong, because that cell which died and fell off contained all my DNA, and could possible be used to create another human. So, I implore you to lick my sweaty taint you pro-choice, religious, fuck wits. My name is WHO897 and I approve this message.

when a woman has her period it is because the egg wasnt fertilized, its the uterine lining sheding and if it wasnt fertilized there was no posibility for human life. Because i do not beleive in God I also dont think there can be such thing as Imaculate conception so there was NO posibility for human life unless you cloned the DNA. Same goes for you masterbation senario.

Also you do not have to be religious to beleive terminating a human life is wrong. I am an Athiest and I still beleive that destroying the potential the unborn child has for unique thoughts should not be wasted.
So up yours.

Ausinus

01-31-2007, 12:12 AM

beatniks-and-politics

01-31-2007, 12:17 AM

Well you obviously arent a civil liberties proponent either.

I am not saying that under certain circumstances abortion should not be allowed, I just beleive that if a hooker chooses to fuck 2o guys in a week and happens to get pregnant she should give it up for adoption as opposed to killing it. Unless you see she's a crack addict, and there is a high chance the baby is going to be deformed/have mental issues, then it would be better for abortion and save the kid from years of therapy and treatments...

who897

01-31-2007, 12:17 AM

when a woman has her period it is because the egg wasnt fertilized, its the uterine lining sheding and if it wasnt fertilized there was no posibility for human life. Because i do not beleive in God I also dont think there can be such thing as Imaculate conception so there was NO posibility for human life unless you cloned the DNA. Same goes for you masterbation senario.

Also you do not have to be religious to beleive terminating a human life is wrong. I am an Athiest and I still beleive that destroying the potential the unborn child has for unique thoughts should not be wasted.
So up yours.

I'm sure Mussolini would be thankful for your positive attitude in that there could be another one of him running around nowadays. I am quite sure that an egg unfertilized could be recaptured and fertilized in a petre dish, which means that there is a potential there bub.

I know you don't have to be religious to believe in stupid thoughts, that is why I wrote "pro-choice, religious, fuck wits". I didn't label yall as one group, like "ignorant pansies".

Aus, the night is still young, and I have my mouse permanently set on the spell checker LOL :D

Ausinus

01-31-2007, 12:19 AM

I am not saying that under certain circumstances abortion should not be allowed, I just beleive that if a hooker chooses to fuck 2o guys in a week and happens to get pregnant she should give it up for adoption as opposed to killing it. Unless you see she's a crack addict, and there is a high chance the baby is going to be deformed/have mental issues, then it would be better for abortion and save the kid from years of therapy and treatments...

Too bad. Its a woman's right to decide if she terminates her pregnancy via abortion. We can reduce the number of abortions with more effective sex education and contraceptives.

Legalise prostitution! ;)

beatniks-and-politics

01-31-2007, 12:24 AM

I'm sure Mussolini would be thankful for your positive attitude in that there could be another one of him running around nowadays. I am quite sure that an egg unfertilized could be recaptured and fertilized in a petre dish, which means that there is a potential there bub.

I know you don't have to be religious to believe in stupid thoughts, that is why I wrote "pro-choice, religious, fuck wits". I didn't label yall as one group, like "ignorant pansies".

Aus, the night is still young, and I have my mouse permanently set on the spell checker LOL :D

huh well if it could be recreated in a petre dish which makes sense, then it is completely pointless to have any biological birth. If we could just clone everyone then there would be no need to even have haploid cells in our body, which opens up a completely new realm of possibilities.
Like, if we cloned everyone, would we have another, younger, george w. running aroud? wouldnt you rather have fresh ideas from unique minds, that is what you hve been promoting after all :D

yea_thats_right1

01-31-2007, 12:33 AM

I just started :D Well, I am sure you at least understood those pro-life, religious, fuck wits should lick my sweaty taint.

uh gross:eek: but right on!:D

ajk

01-31-2007, 12:56 AM

Too bad. Its a woman's right to decide if she terminates her pregnancy via abortion. We can reduce the number of abortions with more effective sex education and contraceptives.

Here's the thing though, condoms are NOT fool proof. If you don't want a kid you probably shouldn't be having sex. Just because you got a condom doesn't mean you won't get pregnant.

beatniks-and-politics

01-31-2007, 12:58 AM

Here's the thing though, condoms are NOT fool proof. If you don't want a kid you probably shouldn't be having sex. Just because you got a condom doesn't mean you won't get pregnant.

also, i think adoption is still a better alternative:)

Ausinus

01-31-2007, 01:15 AM

also, i think adoption is still a better alternative:)

Still, the risks of legal clinical abortion tend to be far less than those of pregnancy.

beatniks-and-politics

01-31-2007, 01:16 AM

Still, the risks of legal clinical abortion tend to be far less than those of pregnancy.

of course this is a perfectly valid arguement but its gonna have to wait till morning, farewell all

who897

01-31-2007, 01:24 AM

I still got ice in my cup so I'm gonna go on a little further with this LOL.

Here's the thing though, condoms are NOT fool proof. If you don't want a kid you probably shouldn't be having sex. Just because you got a condom doesn't mean you won't get pregnant.

No, here's the thing, someone should have told your ma and pops that!

uh gross but right on!

It's only gross if you have to do it or your are forced to watch it :D Other then that I should be perfectly necessary LOL

huh well if it could be recreated in a petre dish which makes sense, then it is completely pointless to have any biological birth. If we could just clone everyone then there would be no need to even have haploid cells in our body, which opens up a completely new realm of possibilities.
Like, if we cloned everyone, would we have another, younger, george w. running aroud? wouldnt you rather have fresh ideas from unique minds, that is what you hve been promoting after all

Actually I am promoting woman's rights to do as she pleases to her persons, which is included but not limited to her womb!

ajk

01-31-2007, 01:28 AM

who897

01-31-2007, 01:31 AM

I have no problem with a woman doing as she pleases with herself. It's when she takes those rights too far, and uses them to effect another person (not to mention family members) that I have a problem.

My goodness the peanut gallery has spoken. You can not take right "too far". If you have the right, then you have the right to do it. A fetus is not another person bub, you also have a problem with masturbation, so that explains a lot of your stance on just about everything.

Ausinus

01-31-2007, 01:35 AM

Plus if she doesnt want it, then she shouldnt have to carry it. Especially considering the rate of death due to childbirth compared to clinical abortion.

ajk

01-31-2007, 01:36 AM

My goodness the peanut gallery has spoken. You can not take right "too far". If you have the right, then you have the right to do it.A fetus is not another person bub

1. Yes you can take your rights too far.
2. Just because it's legal, doesn't mean you should do it.
3. A fetus is a person

ajk

01-31-2007, 01:37 AM

[QUOTE=Ausinus;18975]Plus if she doesnt want it, then she shouldnt have to carry it./QUOTE]

Then she should have thought about that before she had sex.

Ausinus

01-31-2007, 01:48 AM

1. Yes you can take your rights too far.
2. Just because it's legal, doesn't mean you should do it.
3. A fetus is a person

1. You can, but abortion is well within her rights
2. 'Should' is an opinion based argument. There is no "should" or "shouldnt" in regards to choice, there is only choice.
3. A foetus is not a person, they do not qualify for personhood.

Ausinus

01-31-2007, 01:51 AM

[QUOTE=Ausinus;18975]Plus if she doesnt want it, then she shouldnt have to carry it./QUOTE]

Then she should have thought about that before she had sex.

If she had sex using contraceptives properly, then there are no qualms. Plus she could just take morning after pill, no fuss, no muss.

ajk

01-31-2007, 02:00 AM

Again contraceptives are not fool proof. If the man and woman would simply think with their heads instead of their bodies, then these situations could be easily prevented.

ajk

01-31-2007, 02:01 AM

2. 'Should' is an opinion based argument. There is no "should" or "shouldnt" in regards to choice, there is only choice.

True, but there are right choices and wrong choices as well here.

Ausinus

01-31-2007, 02:02 AM

True, but there are right choices and wrong choices as well here.

There is no "right" or "wrong" choice, especially considering the morals of people are subjective and differ. There is only a choice, it may be the "better" choice in some circumstances, but not necessarily the "right" choice.

Ausinus

01-31-2007, 02:05 AM

Again contraceptives are not fool proof. If the man and woman would simply think with their heads instead of their bodies, then these situations could be easily prevented.

Abstinence is far more ineffective than standard contraceptives. We need to put more reasearch into more effective contraceptives. if you double up especially, the chances of getting pregnant are infinitesimal.

ajk

01-31-2007, 02:13 AM

Still doesn't mean you won't. The only true way to avoid unwanted pregancy is through abstinence.

theicidal maniac

01-31-2007, 02:13 AM

Well guys, most contraception is 99% effective IF IT'S USED RIGHT...that's why we need to focus on EDUCATING PEOPLE HOW TO USE IT, NOT TELLING THEM THEY WILL GO TO HELL IF THEY DO

ajk

01-31-2007, 02:13 AM

There is no "right" or "wrong" choice, especially considering the morals of people are subjective and differ.

Yes there is, morals are not subjective, nor were they ever. Right is right, and wrong is wrong.

ajk

01-31-2007, 02:14 AM

Well guys, most contraception is 99% effective IF IT'S USED RIGHT...that's why we need to focus on EDUCATING PEOPLE HOW TO USE IT, NOT TELLING THEM THEY WILL GO TO HELL IF THEY DO

But wouldn't you rather be 100% sure of avoiding pregnancy instead of 99%?

theicidal maniac

01-31-2007, 02:15 AM

Still doesn't mean you won't. The only true way to avoid unwanted pregancy is through abstinence.

Abstinence is also a great way to make your species go extinct. Well, that and having multiple doomsday religions that all believe themselves to be the ONLY TRUTH in the world, and who are willing to kill eachother in the name of god. That is a pretty effective form of extinction assurance, too.

theicidal maniac

01-31-2007, 02:17 AM

Yes there is, morals are not subjective, nor were they ever. Right is right, and wrong is wrong.

That's funny...ask anyone who studies culture (can you say AN THRO POL O GIST?) or anyone who studies morals and the brain, or mythology, or ANYONE WHO ACTUALLY WOULD KNOW and they agree that morals ARE VERY subjective. Huh...I guess they should all be learning from AJK....

ajk

01-31-2007, 02:18 AM

Abstinence is also a great way to make your species go extinct.

Which is precisely what marriage for.

ajk

01-31-2007, 02:18 AM

That's funny...ask anyone who studies culture (can you say AN THRO POL O GIST?) or anyone who studies morals and the brain, or mythology, or ANYONE WHO ACTUALLY WOULD KNOW and they agree that morals ARE VERY subjective. Huh...I guess they should all be learning from AJK....

Maybe in the eyes of the world, but not in the eyes of God.

theicidal maniac

01-31-2007, 02:20 AM

Maybe in the eyes of the world, but not in the eyes of God.

Oh...are you his spokesperson? You decide what God wants? BLASPHEMER! BURN THE HERETIC!!!!

theicidal maniac

01-31-2007, 02:21 AM

Maybe in the eyes of the world, but not in the eyes of God.

That is the stupidest fucking thing you've ever said...You have made me say that a lot, dude!

Ausinus

01-31-2007, 02:21 AM

Maybe in the eyes of the world, but not in the eyes of God.

But again, the idea that god is the source of morality is a subjective idea, so it is not necessarily right or wrong.

ajk

01-31-2007, 02:23 AM

Yes it is. Whether you believe it or not He is real and you will be judged by Him at the end of your life.

Ausinus

01-31-2007, 02:23 AM

But wouldn't you rather be 100% sure of avoiding pregnancy instead of 99%?

Abstinence is far from 100% effective at preventing pregnancy. As time goes by, the urge to mate will grow stronger and stronger. In fact, abstinence only sex education has lead to an increase in the rate of teen pregnancy.

ajk

01-31-2007, 02:24 AM

Abstinence is far from 100% effective at preventing pregnancy. As time goes by, the urge to mate will grow stronger and stronger.

Which again is why people get married.

Ausinus

01-31-2007, 02:25 AM

Yes it is. Whether you believe it or not He is real and you will be judged by Him at the end of your life.

If it isnt subjective, how come worship of a one true god only appeared about 5000 years ago?

Ausinus

01-31-2007, 02:26 AM

Which again is why people get married.

Im talking about teenagers in this context.

ajk

01-31-2007, 02:26 AM

If it isnt subjective, how come worship of a one true god only appeared about 5000 years ago?

Maybe because that's old the world really is.

Ausinus

01-31-2007, 02:27 AM

Maybe because that's old the world really is.

Nope. Try again. We have irrefutably proven it isnt only 5000 years old.

theicidal maniac

01-31-2007, 02:27 AM

Maybe because that's old the world really is.

actually Jews introduced the idea in 600 BC

Ausinus

01-31-2007, 02:28 AM

actually Jews introduced the idea in 600 BC

Tack on an E to then end of BC please. And monotheism appeared prior to the jews.

theicidal maniac

01-31-2007, 02:30 AM

Tack on an E to then end of BC please. And monotheism appeared prior to the jews.

my bad...didn't think AJK would recognize BCE, because AJK recognizes nothing else about science and the real world because his fantasies are somehow superior to reality

I never heard of monotheism before 600 BCE

Ausinus

01-31-2007, 02:31 AM

my bad...didn't think AJK would recognize BCE, because AJK recognizes nothing else about science and the real world because his fantasies are somehow superior to reality

I never heard of monotheism before 600 BCE

The Aten heresy in Egypt? Plus there were some monotheistic cults in the Middle East about 3000 BCE

theicidal maniac

01-31-2007, 02:34 AM

The Aten heresy in Egypt? Plus there were some monotheistic cults in the Middle East about 3000 BCE

interesting...I suppose AJK probably thinks they worshipped Yahweh or Elohim, and probably doesn't even realize that THOSE are two different Gods...

Ausinus

01-31-2007, 02:35 AM

interesting...I suppose AJK probably thinks they worshipped Yahweh or Elohim, and probably doesn't even realize that THOSE are two different Gods...

Nah, they were like Baal and junk like that :D

theicidal maniac

01-31-2007, 02:35 AM

Ausinus

01-31-2007, 02:37 AM

So wait a minute...did AJK say something about the earth being 5,000 years old? That's wierd. What a weird belief. Did he really say that? why? Scientists have nailed down that the Earth can be no less than 4.5 billion years old. What a weird belief.

Lol. Its strange, christians often doubt the validity of carbon dating, except when there is evidence for something biblical, then they are all for it.

theicidal maniac

01-31-2007, 02:39 AM

At the 1981 Arkansas creation science trial EVERY ONE OF THE CREATIONIST GEOLOGICAL WITNESSES testified that no scientific evidence exists which questions the consistency of radiometric decay rates that are used to test the Earth's age.

Ausinus

01-31-2007, 02:40 AM

beatniks-and-politics

01-31-2007, 01:59 PM

Exactly. Its just some more

CHRISTIAN BULLSHIT

it basically is...

mad mitch

01-31-2007, 02:04 PM

morality==religion, or does it?

i have 3 kids, not divorced, try to treat people as I would be,
work hard, been with the family for what...32 years....
and I don't go to church these days./
Why, because there are lots of hypocrites there.
Drunks, gamblers, dopers, molesters(under the auspices of the church)
embezzlers..........remember everybody cheats. that was in a movie.

You are what you are...people just imitate what they are and now it is
all more in the open

religion is about murder.

it's not okay to kill your neighbor, but it's okay to go off to war and kill?

hey, murder is murder...how can you separate the two
look at eh crusades
look at the politics of religion in ireland over religion

Religion is the biggest drug of the masses.
I want to go to the wall and bobbbl head up and down
ahhhhm,,,ahhhhmmm

ahjjmmm

I disagree. I think we need religion. Without it we get what we have now, people just doing whatever they want without a care for how others are affected by them. If you go back to the 1950's, things were better in ways. The Divorce rate was much smaller then compared to now. Obviously some things have changed for the better of course (less segregation in society), but people weren't as out of control as they tend to be today.

All of this of course began during the sexual revolution. Ever since that point things have fallen apart. We have no moral backbone anymore, which would usually go along with religion.

beatniks-and-politics

01-31-2007, 02:33 PM

morality==religion, or does it?

i have 3 kids, not divorced, try to treat people as I would be,
work hard, been with the family for what...32 years....
and I don't go to church these days./
Why, because there are lots of hypocrites there.
Drunks, gamblers, dopers, molesters(under the auspices of the church)
embezzlers..........remember everybody cheats. that was in a movie.

You are what you are...people just imitate what they are and now it is
all more in the open

religion is about murder.

it's not okay to kill your neighbor, but it's okay to go off to war and kill?

hey, murder is murder...how can you separate the two
look at eh crusades
look at the politics of religion in ireland over religion

Religion is the biggest drug of the masses.
I want to go to the wall and bobbbl head up and down
ahhhhm,,,ahhhhmmm

ahjjmmm

I agree. Religion controls people and people control religion.
Priests use it to shelid themselves from the law [at least try] and almost all wars are based on religious feuds[ie.world war II]
Polotics are mostly based upon religion aswell. Do you think americans would elect a Muslim president? Of course not. The same goes for everyother country. People refuse to be led by somebody who has different religious values. It is completely ridiculous.

something

01-31-2007, 02:56 PM

I agree. Religion controls people and people control religion.
Priests use it to shelid themselves from the law [at least try] and almost all wars are based on religious feuds[ie.world war II]
Polotics are mostly based upon religion aswell. Do you think americans would elect a Muslim president? Of course not. The same goes for everyother country. People refuse to be led by somebody who has different religious values. It is completely ridiculous.

I know that in sweden (I do spend a lot of time there, it's a very peacful country, and it's not very long to go) would a christian president, or statsminister as they call it, have hard to be elected, because religion doesn't mean so much to them, but a moslem would have even harder to get elected.

beatniks-and-politics

01-31-2007, 03:00 PM

I know that in sweden (I do spend a lot of time there, it's a very peacful country, and it's not very long to go) would a christian president, or statsminister as they call it, have hard to be elected, because religion doesn't mean so much to them, but a moslem would have even harder to get elected.

You are teaching me an awful lot today. Im not very well educated about Sweden either :D
I understand why it would be hard to elect a religious leader anywhere. Can you imagine if a world leader came out and said he/she was a homosexual? what do you think would happen with so many people against them?

something

01-31-2007, 03:06 PM

You are teaching me an awful lot today. Im not very well educated about Sweden either :D
I understand why it would be hard to elect a religious leader anywhere. Can you imagine if a world leader came out and said he/she was a homosexual? what do you think would happen with so many people against them?

If any president but kennedy would be murdered, would it be him :D How ever, the first steps has already been taken to a more, how do you say, "equal" availability for the post as a leader. Womens are taking the leading posts in many countries, and I heard you have a black guy trying to be president over there?

beatniks-and-politics

01-31-2007, 03:09 PM

If any president but kennedy would be murdered, would it be him :D How ever, the first steps has already been taken to a more, how do you say, "equal" availability for the post as a leader. Womens are taking the leading posts in many countries, and I heard you have a black guy trying to be president over there?

uhhms im sorry I'm in Canada...and yeah it's getting alot better for fair elections of late. I was surprised to hear about the black guy running, but very happy for him all the same. Is that in the US?

something

01-31-2007, 03:15 PM

uhhms im sorry I'm in Canada...and yeah it's getting alot better for fair elections of late. I was surprised to hear about the black guy running, but very happy for him all the same. Is that in the US?

Aha, sorry, well yes, the newspaper said so. According to it, his Hilarys biggest threat in the election next year, but he's not going to win this one, maybe next. Well no I gotta go, godbye:D

beatniks-and-politics

01-31-2007, 03:18 PM

Aha, sorry, well yes, the newspaper said so. According to it, his Hilarys biggest threat in the election next year, but he's not going to win this one, maybe next. Well no I gotta go, godbye:D

Well have a wonderful night:D
And if i end up moving to the states I will certainly vote for him.

ajk

01-31-2007, 04:44 PM

i have 3 kids, not divorced, try to treat people as I would be,
work hard, been with the family for what...32 years....
and I don't go to church these days./
Why, because there are lots of hypocrites there.
Drunks, gamblers, dopers, molesters(under the auspices of the church)
embezzlers..........remember everybody cheats. that was in a movie.

You shouldn't let the acts of a few tarnish the good of the rest.

religion is about murder.

it's not okay to kill your neighbor, but it's okay to go off to war and kill?

Ever hear of a just war?

Ausinus

01-31-2007, 05:22 PM

Aha, sorry, well yes, the newspaper said so. According to it, his Hilarys biggest threat in the election next year, but he's not going to win this one, maybe next. Well no I gotta go, godbye:D

I dont know who to support, I like both Hillary and Obama. T_T

beatniks-and-politics

01-31-2007, 06:09 PM

I dont know who to support, I like both Hillary and Obama. T_T

Yes of course they are both good candidates, but voting for Obama promotes a huge change in our society.

something

02-01-2007, 08:10 AM

Yes of course they are both good candidates, but voting for Obama promotes a huge change in our society.

Absolutely. Once the first step is taken, will we have a lot of cabdidates that is not white, not christian and not male. Of course, In the middle east and in china has there never been a christian or white leader:D

hitekredneck

02-01-2007, 09:16 AM

I dont know who to support, I like both Hillary and Obama. T_T

they're both shitty, dishonest, waffling, flip-flopping, inconsiderate, uncaring, unclean, unpatriotic politicians like all the rest:mad:
fuckin aussies ;)

beatniks-and-politics

02-01-2007, 04:52 PM

they're both shitty, dishonest, waffling, flip-flopping, inconsiderate, uncaring, unclean, unpatriotic politicians like all the rest:mad:
fuckin aussies ;)

Well obviously...they're politicians did you expect any less? The point is, with Obama running, he is opening gates for many other people who previously thought it impossible to run for office.

theicidal maniac

02-01-2007, 05:04 PM

Obama's a good guy. I like him. I can't think of anything particularly negative about him. Does anybody have dirt on the guy?

ajk

02-01-2007, 05:09 PM

He's for abortion, that's dirt enough for me. I'm going for Brownback, he's pro life, pro family, etc. He has all the moral values a good politician should have. So he gets my vote without question.

Ausinus

02-01-2007, 05:15 PM

Funnily enough, the republican party is starting to tone down their conservatism on matters such as gays rights and abortion. I think its because America has finally had enough bullshit, and the Reps realise that pleasing the christian right is secondary.

Vote Hillary or Obama, I dont care which :D

ajk

02-01-2007, 05:19 PM

I can assure you if Brownback were to get into office that wouldn't be the case.

Ausinus

02-01-2007, 05:20 PM

I can assure you if Brownback were to get into office that wouldn't be the case.

Brownback wont, the biggest contender of the right is McCain.

ajk

02-01-2007, 05:21 PM

Never know man, who knows what can happen in the next year or so.

Ausinus

02-01-2007, 05:25 PM

Never know man, who knows what can happen in the next year or so.

We can roughly predict though. I think its more likely that a Democrat will get in, middle America looks like it has had enough of republicans. Hillary might get in, because people will remember a happier time when the biggest scandal was a blowjob from an intern.

General Septem

02-01-2007, 07:01 PM

After having our country led by Bush, Dick, and Colon, the last thing we need is a Brownback or Cox. :D

Ausinus

02-01-2007, 07:04 PM

After having our country led by Bush, Dick, and Colon, the last thing we need is a Brownback or Cox. :D

Lol ive heard that one too.:D

General Septem

02-01-2007, 07:23 PM

We can roughly predict though. I think its more likely that a Democrat will get in, middle America looks like it has had enough of republicans. Hillary might get in, because people will remember a happier time when the biggest scandal was a blowjob from an intern.

If Hillarity is elected, she will be shot. If any Demo has to get in, at least let it be someone like Dennis Kucinich. At least he's more of a Libertarian than anyone else.

starry123nights

02-02-2007, 12:55 PM

I know I'm going to offend some women here, but the last thing I want is a woman in office. If there ever is a woman, please let her be better then Hilary. It's going to be a democrat this time. I haven't decided who I'm going to vote for.

hitekredneck

02-02-2007, 01:13 PM

General Septem

02-02-2007, 07:12 PM

beatniks-and-politics

02-02-2007, 09:52 PM

Agreed, and if you are a woman, I agree with hitekredneck's post as well. :D

what would be so awful about having a woman in office? Please, explain how it would be any worse than having a man. I realize if it was Hillary it would be worse...but if another woman was running, would you not vote for her simply because she was a woman?

General Septem

02-02-2007, 10:13 PM

what would be so awful about having a woman in office? Please, explain how it would be any worse than having a man. I realize if it was Hillary it would be worse...but if another woman was running, would you not vote for her simply because she was a woman?

That depends. I don't think it's wrong that Margaret Thatcher is in office. But if she's got kids she should be raising, then the last thing we need is her running the country and trying to raise her kids at the same time. This doesn't apply to Hillary, mind you, I just think she's a bitch.

theicidal maniac

02-02-2007, 10:23 PM

That depends. I don't think it's wrong that Margaret Thatcher is in office. But if she's got kids she should be raising, then the last thing we need is her running the country and trying to raise her kids at the same time. This doesn't apply to Hillary, mind you, I just think she's a bitch.

So you're saying that women should stay home taking care of the babies and baking pot pies? Laundry. That sort of thing?

yea_thats_right1

02-03-2007, 07:27 AM

That depends. I don't think it's wrong that Margaret Thatcher is in office. But if she's got kids she should be raising, then the last thing we need is her running the country and trying to raise her kids at the same time. This doesn't apply to Hillary, mind you, I just think she's a bitch.

women are excellent multi-taskers...and how come a woman couldnt be president and have the father do some "mommy" work?? thats insulting gen.

hitekredneck

02-03-2007, 07:45 AM

just to clear things up, i would vote for a woman whether she had kids or not, as long as i thought she would do the job...or at least was the lessor of 2 evils:(
i don't like hillary, she's worse than your typical dirtbag politician...
i can't blame bill for screwin around on her

General Septem

02-03-2007, 04:52 PM

women are excellent multi-taskers...and how come a woman couldnt be president and have the father do some "mommy" work?? thats insulting gen.

You know what's insulting, is when a mother doesn't raise her kids like she's supposed to, but puts them in daycare instead. That's an insult to the kid.

Ausinus

02-03-2007, 04:59 PM

You know what's insulting, is when a mother doesn't raise her kids like she's supposed to, but puts them in daycare instead. That's an insult to the kid.

There is no problem with daycare. Women can be mothers and still have a good career. I should know, I was raised by a career woman.

hitekredneck

02-03-2007, 05:03 PM

You know what's insulting, is when a mother doesn't raise her kids like she's supposed to, but puts them in daycare instead. That's an insult to the kid.

you know what's really insulting?...when the worthless piece of shit that got the woman pregnant does nothing to assist in the raising of the child...of course, she's at fault as well, but at least she's trying

General Septem

02-03-2007, 05:15 PM

you know what's really insulting?...when the worthless piece of shit that got the woman pregnant does nothing to assist in the raising of the child...of course, she's at fault as well, but at least she's trying

Sure, if the father just runs off and someone's got to pay the bills and put food on the table, what's a girl going to do? But if if the family has already got a source of income, she needs to put aside her own personal desire for power and raise her kids. That should be any mother's first priority.

Ausinus

02-03-2007, 05:18 PM

hitekredneck

02-03-2007, 05:32 PM

Sure, if the father just runs off and someone's got to pay the bills and put food on the table, what's a girl going to do? But if if the family has already got a source of income, she needs to put aside her own personal desire for power and raise her kids. That should be any mother's first priority.

gen, i'm sure you're single with no kids...do you know how fuckin hard it is to raise a family on one paycheck nowadays?...it ain't got nuttin to do with power or what her real desires are...it's the fact that a family of 3-4 can't survive on a single paycheck unless the guy's a fuckin ceo:cool:

who897

02-03-2007, 06:57 PM

gen, i'm sure you're single with no kids...do you know how fuckin hard it is to raise a family on one paycheck nowadays?...it ain't got nuttin to do with power or what her real desires are...it's the fact that a family of 3-4 can't survive on a single paycheck unless the guy's a fuckin ceo:cool:

Not true. Plenty of folks in the military only live off of one paycheck. So, join the military and you can feed your hellions :D

General Septem

02-03-2007, 07:51 PM

Maybe your first priority should be to stfu and let a mother have a career if she wants.

Hey, I'm not getting in the way of what she wants to do. I'm saying, if the only reason for her being away from the house constantly is because it's what she wants, then she's not fulfilling her obligation to her kids.

If it's out of necessity it's another matter.

Maybe you should read what I say instead of arguing what consequences I never mentioned apply to whatever circumstances I didn't say.