|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
 Posted - 07/17/2003 : 12:12:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Military service should be voluntary. (No draft): When faced with a clear and present danger, I wouldn't want my home to be overrun due to a lack of manpower
Who says that's going to happen? You are speculating.
The things the Libertarians want to correct have already happened.
The government is a mess, private concerns could do a better job. |
 |
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 07/17/2003 : 12:14:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Rat
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
WHERE ARE YOU NOW AND HOW DID YOU GET THERE?
Anyone else notice we're drifting just a tad off topic?
And your point IS?
Gee, can't a guy have a conversation without fear of being arested? |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 07/17/2003 : 12:22:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Some could argue that prostitution is not consentual sex, but non-concentual sex in trade for monetary consideration.
That's ridiculous. If someone signs a business contract and is under duress they can sue, I guess. But for the most part how can you say they are not concenting? If they are in a business they don't like, they should get out. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/17/2003 : 13:25:34 [Permalink]
|
Valiant Dancer wrote:quote:
This is the only one that I really disagree with you on. I believe the objection is to sex between consenting adults and not on sex for a merely commercial purpose. Some could argue that prostitution is not consentual sex, but non-concentual sex in trade for monetary consideration.
But where is any of that stated within the question as written? For purposes of answering, we can either assume that prostitution is consenual sex, or not. Since some respondents will assume one way, while others will assume the other, it's another example of how this is a bad question, and a crappy test.
Snake wrote:quote:
Who says that's going to happen? You are speculating.
Yes, I am. I am examining the possibilities implied by the question itself. That the elimination of any considerations of a draft for all time might lead, in some future U.S.A., to a point where there aren't enough soldiers to successfully defend the country is one of those possibilities. The idea that we'll always have enough soldiers volunteering is also speculation. You can't prove the future by looking at the past.quote:
The things the Libertarians want to correct have already happened. The government is a mess, private concerns could do a better job.
All of which is completely irrelevant to whether or not the test is a good one, and can accurately measure a person's political leanings.
Please note, Snake, that I'm not arguing against Libertarianism, I'm only arguing that this particular test is junk.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 07/17/2003 : 21:39:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
The idea that we'll always have enough soldiers volunteering is also speculation. You can't prove the future by looking at the past
But it's a good indicator.
Hey, if one wants to think about what COULD happen, a conscripted army could desert. LOL, that's happened in the past too.
quote:
Please note, Snake, that I'm not arguing against Libertarianism, I'm only arguing that this particular test is junk.
That's ok. I don't care! I'm defending my party just like Rush would do defending conservitives. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2003 : 08:45:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
This thirst for understanding has led each of us to look for answers. Some of you believe you've found the answer, some are not so sure, some are still looking, some are trying to share what they've discovered with others.
I've found many answers, but there are still many out there waiting to be discovered.
quote:
WHERE ARE YOU NOW AND HOW DID YOU GET THERE?
I'm swinging from day to day wildly depending on my mood, which depends on my day to day experiences. But on average you might call me agnostic.
quote:
If you'd like to share your story to date (revised/edited version) here's a chance. In telling your tale, please answer specificly if you believe or not in God and and to what extent this belief affects your life.
Back in the school days, I was bullied, and a subject to my classmates idea of fun, partly because I had short temper and other stuff. One of the few who did show real friendship was brought up in a christian family, Pentacostal.
He invited me to church youth groups, and there I found a safe haven from all the bad stuff that surrounded me. I found solace in the doctrins of that church and became a believer.
Still, I held on to the science I have been taught is school, and I was very interested in technology. And in that environment a rift was formed. After a couple of years I realized that the people I've had surrounded myself with was just that, ordinary people. Oh, they talked about following the teaching of christ, but that was it. I bacame more and more shunned because of my faith in science and technology in parallel with my faith in God. They saw science in opposition of faith where I saw no conflict. Finally I realized that the church was filled with hippocits, and started looking in other churches: Pentacostal in nearby towns, baptist churches, and some other congregations. But everywhere I saw the same thing... If you didn't have any connections to the inner circle, you had no chance of getting in.
I thought that God should have been able to correct all those small oversights and mistakes in "his own church", a place where He should have the strongest support. I guess this is the reason I started loosing faith. I found more and more contradictions between the teachings and the behaviour of those supposed followers of it. What's the point then? Realizing that the congregations are just another form of "club for initialized", I drifted out of the church community. And when no one seemed to care, I wasn't even surprized, it just confimed that I was right, and I finally left the church altogether.
For about ten years I considered myself more or less "born again christian". During this time I bought the whole package (though I remained skeptical to the Young Earth part, choosing to interpret the most amazing OT stories less litterally than my friends). This indoctrination has been the source of internal conficts in me these ten years that has passed since I decisivly denounced my faith, in this fasion: I prayed to God, and in that prayer I said "I've grown tired of doing stuff for you, and get nothing in return. Now, piss of, I'll continue on my own. Good riddance!"
Immediatly after that things started to go my way. In a matter of weeks I got a new job that enabled me to grow, both in my profession and as a person. Within a half year I had met the woman who is now my girlfriend. I've gotten myself new friends that I trust more than I did my old from church.
I can not deny that the time I spent in church has done some good. It offered me stability in a period of my life that was much turbulent, and when I started to "outgrow" the church, I got some insight in how petty humans can be sometimes, even those who hold themselved to higher standard. Or at least claim to do so.
I've devoted my intellect to science and logic, and I'm trying to apply skeptical thinking in my life.
Still, every now and then, when I loose my focus, the old indoctrination kicks in and I find myself acting and thinking as if I still believed in the God/Jesus as taught be the Pentacostal church where I grew up. Then I get angry, and start blaming "Him" for all the shit that I and my near and dear have had to go through over the years. I lost my much loved mother-in-law in cancer. Needlessly, since He's supposed to be good and omnipotent and so on...
So God has to be either indifferent or a sadist. So once again I say "God/Jesus, Piss off, I've got my own life to live, and i'm better off without you."
In the end I come full circle and realize that the universe only makes sense if there is no God. The indoctrination is powerful, and even after ten years, I'm still suffering from them once in a while. But they are getting farther apart. And writing here is good therapy.
quote:
Which direction are you going from your current belief; towards more faith or less faith more doubt, or less?
I'm slowly working my way away from the dependency of God, toward atheism. And every day I feel my confidence in myself grow, and doubt fading away. I'm heading in the right direction, and I can see it more and more clearly. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2003 : 12:50:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tim
Posted by Snakequote:
That's why so many who take the Libertarian 'test' on their web site do find out they agree with Libertarian views.
You know, I took that silly test a couple of years ago. Then, I just took it again. Things seem to never change. Once again, I fell exactly at the intersection of Left Liberal, Libertarian, and Centrist. So much for that! http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html
Org's comment: This is the test that Snake was talking about (--or so she says later on). My red-dot was EXACTLY on the 'r' in 'Libertarian'. Hmmmmm.
quote:
Tim's posting continues:
Now, that Libertarian Purity Test, I can't even get through it. It reminds me of answering one of those questionaires sent out by my Congressman that are designed to assure you answer just the way they want you to. http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi/purity.cgi
Org's further comment: I made it through the 'purity' quiz----scored a pitiful 56. Do those questions S**K or what!?!
quote:
Tim continues:
I will admit that I find the social platforms of the Libertarian Party very appealing. However, the Libertarian Party seems to have a very Utopian, and perhaps dangerous veiw of Economics and private ownership of social sevices. I am still trying to find someone that can explain how laisse faire markets or Adam Smith's invisible hand is supposed to work. Man, I've tried, but it still sounds like wishful thinking mixed with a little faerie dust.
Posted by Sanityquote:
What many don't realize is that until a few decades ago, the Democratic party was the party of Christianity.
Tim responds:
Who ever said that the two major parties made sense anyway. The Republicans call themselves the Grand Old Party. Unfortunately, The Republican Party was founded in 1854 to oppose slavery, while the Democratic Party was founded in the 1790's to oppose the Federalists. I hardly think either party is very similar today.
I think, also, that the Democratic Party is still the party of liberal Christians. It's the Fundamentalists, the Charismatics, the Reconstructionists, and blue-collar Catholics that fled to the Republican Party. Unfortunately, for the Dems, these are the ones that are more likely to vote, and more likely to be one issue voters.
Computer Org politely demures: Are there really two political parties? I can't help but feel that what we are looking at are two schisms (or 'branches') of but a single party----the olde Federalist Party which pretty well gutted both the Constitution and the original notion of a Union of States in favor of an increasingly POWERful central government. While the Anti-Federalists, under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson, ousted the near-monarchical Federalists (---and there were PLENTY of cries that Pres. Adams really wanted to become a King---), the corrupting influence of POWER never stops acting.
Ayn Rand? What a fraud she is. Re-read Atlas Shrugged or Fountainhead (----it takes a v-e-r-y long week-end and much fortitude----) and you'll find that you could just as easily be 'converted' to the far left as to the purported far right of the political spectrum. The only truly CONSISTENT element, IMHO, is the end-goal of POWER for someone------that 'someone' preferably being other-than an elected government. Bad, bad, bad.
But enough of my contributing to this extensive (but interesting) hijack. Trusty Doomar started this thread with:quote:
All of us are on a journey through life. We will die some day. But this fact is not enough for most of us. We want to know why.
Oh, oh! I, for one, Doomar, have gotten stuck on the second sentence: "We will die some day." Will we?
I think that I know what you mean by "die"---Kuput! Finished! Ended! Buh-bye! I disagree.
Where do I come from? My belief is from more human lifetimes than I care to think about.
And where do I expect to go after this hydrocarbon husk stops working? Except for the ill-begotten work of many, many molecular biologists----eagerly seeking riches and fame at any or all costs----I would expect to live yet another human lifetime. And another. And another. Ad nausium--or until it was time to 'go elsewhere'. ("Elsewhere"? For example, the Buddhists perhaps would call it "Nirvanah".)
Am I a 'theist'? The answer to that is unequivocally "YES!". My reasons are, of course, anecdotal and are, therefore, inadmissible.   |
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2003 : 18:51:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Computer Org
Org's comment: This is the test that Snake was talking about (--or so she says later on).
"or so she says"
HE. Remember I hate women.
quote:
Ayn Rand? What a fraud she is
I've mentioned that to some of my Libertarian friends but don't care to argue the matter with them, so I leave it alone. But glad to hear someone finally agrees with me. I've been saying that for years. |
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2003 : 06:50:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Snake
quote:
Originally posted by Computer Org
Org's comment: This is the test that Snake was talking about (--or so she says later on).
"or so she says"
HE. Remember I hate women.
<snip>
My most sincere apologies. Somewhere a switch must have gone wrong in my head; perhaps it was a picture I saw of your avatar with a blonde woman. 
|
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2003 : 07:01:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hisself (--Orgy Porgy--) earlier:
Am I a 'theist'? The answer to that is unequivocally "YES!". My reasons are, of course, anecdotal and are, therefore, inadmissible.
In retrospect, my unequivocal answer is probably in error.
I'm afraid that I read "theist" as "deist".
I suppose that "theist" comes from "theology" and, so, to be a "theist" would mean that you believe in one of more [formal] theologies. I don't. (Err. Does this make me an "atheist"?)
Were you, Doomar, to ask "Do you, Org, believe in a [Supreme] Deity?", I would respond with an unequivocal "YES!!
Sorry: In my earlier posting, I seem to have answered the wrong question---incorrectly. |
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2003 : 17:53:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Computer Org
My most sincere apologies. Somewhere a switch must have gone wrong in my head; perhaps it was a picture I saw of your avatar with a blonde woman.
Blond woman....not likely. At least not anything I ever put up(that I remember...the old brain isn't what it used to be ).
I would suggest writing to Kil personaly for an explanation. He, of all the people I've tried to tell of my situation was the only one to 'get it'. If even only jokingly..not sure.
And I don't correct him when he says 'she' when it should be 'he'. He just tries to taunt me. Kil.... |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2003 : 17:56:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Computer Org
Sorry: In my earlier posting, I seem to have answered the wrong question---incorrectly.
You mean, Mother was wrong. Two 'wrongs' DO make a 'right'?
This is getting confusing! |
|
|
|
Dog_Ed
Skeptic Friend
USA
126 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2003 : 22:38:41 [Permalink]
|
To the original topic post: I have no belief in God, and never had any; if God wants to show Himself plainly and unequivocally He is certainly welcome to. He's got a standing invitation from me to do so. So far He hasn't taken me up on it.
Second-hand evidence doesn't cut it: People describe miracles, but other people describe flying-saucer aliens and faeries and ghosts. Psychological evidence doesn't cut it either: People can get a tranquility rush from secular meditation, drugs, or electrical stimulation of the brain as well as by "giving up their life to Jesus."
I find the evidence against the existence of the Christian God pretty convincing--especially the fact that the Bible contains errors and contradictions. What kind of omnipotent Supreme Being would allow His greatest tool (His holy Word) for achieving His fondest wish (the salvation of man) to become corrupted and riddled with errors? Ye cats, this is a job that human copy editors by the thousands do passably well every day! |
"Even Einstein put his foot in it sometimes" |
|
|
|
wonkavision
New Member
USA
16 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2003 : 09:26:59 [Permalink]
|
Hey Rat, you posted that exact, and I mean verbatim, harrangue about your naturalist "religion" on the ezboard skeptics forum under the name Dave Baily. Here was my reply there:
I have to respond to the initial thrust of this thread. That post has some pretty slippery semantics. A-THIEST- a, a prefix meaning not, without, theist, meaning one who believes in a god or gods. Your point that being defined simply as contrary to theism is obliquely pejorative and narrow in definition is true, but you should then find some neologism to define your atheism if it bothers you. Perhaps you are a skeptical rationalist by philosophy, but not by religion. Or you can just get to the point of what you are really saying is that you are agnostic, but you are not religious and atheism is not a term that exists independent of the conjecture of god. Religion is etymologically rooted in the supernatural. There is nothing to be ashamed of in being in the minority on issues of creed. In fact, in this case, it is reason for pride. Instead of avoiding those arguments, just smirk and feel good that you have an incisive intellect. And as for this notion that came up later in the thread that we can come to know everything is silly, and the notion that if we couldn't it would make the search for knowledge fruitless is even sillier. We can develop models which represent aspects of reality in a simplified form and thereby come to have profound knowledge of the universe, but we can not isomorphically map all of existence. We are a subset of the universe, and a subset can not contain the set of which it is a part. There is simply to much synergistic information to completely know the universe. The whether is inherently unpredictable for this reason. That doesn't mean that the pursuit of knowledge is fruitless though. We can certainly plumb the depths and make a map, and this knowledge is thrilling beyond compare. |
So shy a good deed in such a weary world... |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
