Royale, I dont know too much acout MLK jr. but didnt he say dont judge a man by the color of his skin, but by his character. That is a conservative belief, not a progressive leftist belief.
In sharp contrast, whether they are in a monogamous or polygynous marriage, women were always expected to be sexually exclusive to one mate. So being sexually exclusive is evolutionarily novel for men, but not for women.
Interesting that most doctors, engineers, and hard science people are conservative and religious.
Interesting that most criminals, journalists, humanities professors, people on welfare, bums on the street, are leftist progressives.
@Caliban:
I wish I had access to that journal in order to actually try to clarify, for myself at the least, if they are talking about social pressures or evolutionary ones.
Physicians are 26 times more likely to be Hindu than the overall U.S. population (5.3 percent of doctors vs. 0.2 percent of nonphysicians). Doctors are seven times more likely to be Jewish (14.1 percent vs. 1.9 percent), six times more likely to be Buddhist (1.2 percent vs. 0.2 percent) and five times more likely to be Muslim (2.7 percent vs. 0.5 percent).It seems, doctors rather more frequently eschew Christianity for OTHER religions. It also seems to hint that U.S. doctor population is biased toward immigrant sources. These two observations out to tickle you some, no? Here's a bit more to ponder:
The finding also differs radically from 90 years of studies showing that only a minority of scientists (excluding physicians) believes in God or an afterlife. ... We suspect that people who combine an aptitude for science with an interest in religion and an affinity for public service are particularly attracted to medicine.
Unlikely (though may be true in a few cases.) Rather, they do not convert. Those that come from immigrant families, simply retain whatever religion they were raised with (be it Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, or Islam.) Which is an observation that ought to make some rabid Christians on here wonder: what if they weren't indoctrinated with their faith from childhood, but with some other faith instead (or lack of faith altogether) -- would they still be Christians right now?It seems, doctors rather more frequently eschew Christianity for OTHER religionsWhat, you mean convert? That don't make sense.
That's what a modern 'liberal arts' education gets you today, propaganda.
"It is important to realize that Fascism and Nazism were socialist dictatorships. The communists, both the registered members of the communist parties and the fellow-travellers, stigmatize Fascism and Nazism as the highest and last and most depraved stage of capitalism. "
http://www.econli...Epilogue
Are you a fellow traveler?
Fascism is not "the highest and last and most depraved stage of capitalism."I think you misunderstand that thesis. The idea is that Fascism is an ultimate blending of government and mega-business. In a Laissez Faire system, lacking regulation, mega-monopolies eventually emerge through M&A and formation of Trusts -- this is basically the corporate form of organized crime (like Mafia), which is very stable and virulent; with their superior resources they eventually capture the press and the government (the latter through bribes, revolving doors, campaign financing, tailored legislation, etc.); the endgame is Fascism -- which, as you've put it, is similar to high-tech Feudalism, and can also be described as Plutocracy. Ironically, the process results in draconian curtailment of freedoms and competition, despite the fact that it begins with an ideally free and 100% competitive state.
monogamy yields fewer offspringNot necessarily; look at Catholics... Also, as the world becomes overpopulated, the cost of offspring goes up dramatically, meaning the quality of their upbringing (and their chances in life) goes down.
a non-kin-centered world view hampers kin selectionModern civilization does the same. Relatives no longer live in closely knit communities; estrangement is common.
and atheism...well, considering how prevalent religion is, I should be very surprised if atheism were adaptiveThis can also change over time, as science continues to progress, and as scientific literacy rises, as it must, due to an increasingly technological culture and environment. Science literacy positively correlates with atheism.
If our intelligence increases too much, we start resisting our own instinctsWould that really be an intelligent thing to do?
@Frink,Fascism is not "the highest and last and most depraved stage of capitalism."
Whether you agree with that particular definition or not, there are definite signs that we might soon be experiencing the fact:
http://www.global...Id=17736
Food for thought.
The Connecticut Yankee ends up becoming just another serf, rather than taking on the role of Merlin's rival...Hm.
Quote function didn't execute properlyon my last post. Then delay for flood control. Sorry.Use the "edit" function. The flood control prevents you from making another post within 3 minutes of a preceding post you've made. That's also the exact interval over which you're allowed to edit your last post once you've submitted it.
Social constructs should be free to evolve and the more active the brain the faster they evolveYou contradict yourself. 'Social' constructs involve more than one brain. And being openly gay- or any such lascivious or intrusive behavior- naturally annoys most people. But you don't care... Or maybe you do?
Young adults who identify themselves as "not at all religious" have an average IQ of 103 during adolescence, while those who identify themselves as "very religious" have an average IQ of 97 during adolescence.
can you please point to the methodologies that were flawed or perhaps a parallel study that shows a completely different conclusion?
Marjon, honestly? We're aligning ourselves with McCarthy's authoritarian policies now? Son, let your credibility take a rest. It's suffered enough for one night.
No, many here are aligned with those McCarthy was trying find.
It is sad that 'intelligent' people are so stupid to believe socialism leads to a more prosperous society. Unless, they do know what they are doing. If so, the arrogance and hubris of the 'intelligent' are showing on this board.
Since when did liberalism become socialism? Last I heard liberalism was the exact opposite of socialism.Liberalism and socialism have no bond. You can be both, one or the other, or neither. You can be a conservative socialist or a liberal socialist, etc.
You have missed the point of the article entirely.No the point was that the "research" indicates that Liberalism, Monogamy, and Atheism are novel evolutionary traits in humans and are an indicator of superior intellect. Neither of which is true on the whole or on average.
Stuck in the clouds of your ego.
What minority group are you referring?
How is this junk science?
In a free market, corporations are regulated by their customers and competition.
It is sad that 'intelligent' people are so stupid to believe socialism leads to a more prosperous society.
Since when did liberalism become socialism? Last I heard liberalism was the exact opposite of socialism.
Only in theory. In practice, as you would be aware if you had any concept of American history, not so much. We essentially had a free market economy up until Teddy Roosevelt. Regulation was necessary because of the actions of private enterprise. Again, education.
Liberalism and socialism have no bond. You can be both, one or the other, or neither. You can be a conservative socialist or a liberal socialist, etc.
As you hastily dispatched Marjon's argument I can do the same for your argument against Capitalism: Hong Kong.
I define stupidity is choosing to remain ignorant.
@Skeptic HereticAs you hastily dispatched Marjon's argument I can do the same for your argument against Capitalism: Hong Kong.
Only if you ignore the government intervention to A) get the ball rolling, B) keep it rolling and C) give it a push when it stops rolling. Nice try, though.
in other words Red = dumb Blue = smart
that bout sums it up for you fucktards lawl
Advanced business practices
Understanding of class in societies and the psychological effects of class on economies.
User interface design in regards to advanced technology
And Sweden arose as a socialist republic with no government right? Wrong.
Capitalism doesn't concern itself with the government or the State.
Economic systems have been quantified and rated by Heritage and can be found here:http://www.heritage.org/index/
Regulation was not necessary. It was a way for political entrepreneurs to control their competition.
Young adults who identify themselves as "not at all religious" have an average IQ of 103 during adolescence, while those who identify themselves as "very religious" have an average IQ of 97 during adolescence.
Take a breather everybody. These statistics show the case for the average person. If you are conservative and religious but are cruising physorg, you are probably smarter than the average person. This is not an attack on any one individual. The study shows that generally Atheistic liberals are smarter, GENERALLY, NOT ALWAYS.
PhD in Cell and Molecular Biology.Uh, you're not gonna go into a staff meeting and shoot up a bunch of people are ya, 'cause I'd wanna call somebody then.
It must be the fact that I'm a conservative Christian that kept me from that 36 on my ACT, the 100th percentile on my GRE, and from attending Harvard or UCSD.
Damn. If only I'd known.
Data suggests Amy Bishop, PhD, who murdered three professors and killed her brother, was a socialist.
What intelligence!
The point of my comment was not to "spread my faith," but rather to show that even "Christian conservatives" can have high IQs and be just as intelligent as liberal atheists.So you're studying for a PhD? I hope somewhere along the line your department forces you to take basic statistics, whereupon you will learn the distinction between individual sample vs. population mean.
Morals are pointless or the existence of a "god" is probable.Some flaws in your analysis:
Putting IQ in terms of a computer, what does it measure?Mostly algorithms, and to some extent processing speed.
Memory? Processing speed? Algorithms?
The article "Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent" will be published in the March 2010 issue of Social Psychology Quarterly.
most higher IQ people realize that there is alot that they don't know
Really? If true, you are the first I have heard to admit to this.
AI3, how about we say most smart people realize that there is a lot they dont know, and dumb people dont know how much they dont know.
First of all, I never said I was anything other than an outlier.Your tone, if not your exact words, suggested you were using yourself as an example to dispute the findings -- as if that were a valid argument.
Unless you sample peoples of every kind, nation, and background, the statistics mean nothingYou forgot every planet, and every galaxy. Here's a hint:
Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) support Kanazawa's hypothesis.Which, after a simple web search, yields the following information:
I believe in global-warming, you're commiting a logical fallacy by associating me with other fallacious logics.I was just pointing out that you were making the same mistake as the anti-global-warming-crowd, not that you were one of them.
@Marjon
Doctors in a socialist country would be people who wanted to help and also academically qualify.
Then it wouldn't be a study. They asked people to describe their political ideologies, then did statistical analyses comparing their SELF ASCRIBED political positions to their INDEPENDENTLY DETERMINED IQs. The results are shown above. If you want to complain about something, why not complain to the SELF DESCRIBED conservatives who got below average IQ scores?
How do they do that?Infecting the laws of society with abstract morality and social preference instilled in the race through 2 thousand years of indoctrination of the ignorant for one.
Governments have the power to force you to do what they want.No, the people when attacked by their government have physical recourse.
If only that would make them stop.
Christians can only persuade. If their words make you feel bad, don't listen.
If people don't like what I write, ignore it. Apparently I hit a nerve or two with some as they can only respond with insults.If you consider our directions into discovering what actually represents a hypothesis, theory, and construct bothers you, feel free to ignore it.
The study specified that they looked at young adults (i.e. people who are at least 18) who had taken IQ tests as adolescents.
'Throughout the Dark Ages and Medieval period the monasteries were practically the only repository of scholarship and learning...'To complete the thought:
Glenn was never regarded as particularly devout.In fact, I struggle to think of any major historical scientist/artist/engineer/achitect (fill in the blank space) who was regarded as an extremely devout soul. I may stand corrected.
Max Planck.
Astronaut John Glenn.
… YOU KNOW religion was the only game in town. Where'd the money come from? What was the main message they were all sewing? 'God is on OUR side, the side of good and right.' Stop em-bare-assing yourselves.
We all know smoking is bad for you. A conservative will tell you that. A progressive will prevent you from smoking. Its all about respect for the person.So, as a self-anointed "conservative", what's your position on Heroin? Cocaine? LSD? Pot? Ecstasy? Meth?
If the Bible is fiction, it is historical fiction in that the places in the Bible do or did exist.Then what's your opinion regarding the Odyssey? How about Mahabharata? Are magic, monsters, spirits, gods, demons, witches, and miracles an objective historical fact?
Considering His humble beginnings and word of mouth advertising, Jesus has quite a reputation.Word of mouth, edict of Rome, despotism of kings, torch of the Inquisition, and sword of colonial conquest. Yes, Jesus has quite a reputation. Just try to see it through otto's eyes...
The state becomes addicted to the money and can't be taken seriously in any claims such drugs are dangerous.What? You'd rather trust the claims of the state, than some mere objective scientific facts? I'm SHOCKED at you, marjon. SHOCKED.
Don't play the village idiot, lest we all start to believe you. You know perfectly well what I meant. Namely, with regard to the Odyssey (or the Mahabharata, or pick your favorite ancient epic), does the following statement of your own authorship apply:Then what's your opinion regarding the Odyssey?How is it doing on Amazon?
How many people have a copy or two at home?
When did Gutenberg print it for the masses?
If the [name of book] is fiction, it is historical fiction in that the places in the [name of book] do or did exist.
See, freehating imagines he can insult progressives by calling them hateful, irrational, emotional liars. He actually seems to think that we'd care for his considered opinion, or that we'd derive our self-worth from such. Well, I thought I'd gratify him by living up to his own preconceptions. He ought to be extremely pleased in so being confirmed. As such, I'm paying him a compliment, don't you see? Just like he does for me with nearly every post.@freehating,
How predictable! Name calling and accusing someone of hate in one word.
You must be a real smart 'progressive'.
Great reason to end government subsidy for health care and hold people accountable for their actions.How shall marjon reconcile "personal accountability" with the tale of the Good Samaritan? Shall we send a gravely ill stranger for emergency care at our own expense, or let him die on the side of the road? Shall we police our own neighborhoods lest drug-induced crime shoots the moon and makes our neighborhoods uninhabitable? Shall we fund rehab clinics, drug treatment research, drug education, and recovery support programs, to minimize relapse and crime? Shall we abandon the children of drug addicts to their doom?
A 'god' as in reality or the natural forces who acts exactly the same whether you worship it or not has to be preferable. It is DEPENDABLE. It is the only one honest enough to let you learn from it. It enables you to take better care of yourself, to enhance your chances for survival on your own.
What would you say if I told you a sentient God loved you, regardless of anything you did, even if your actions have repercussions far beyond anything we can see and imagine?I'd say this: why should I take you seriously, regarding something about which you're no more knowledgeable than I, for which you have no evidence, which is laughably childish and incredibly improbable, and of which you'd be ignorant yourself had you not already taken someone else's word on equally nonexistent grounds? Or perhaps I'd simplify, and simply say you're a gullible fool and a victim of happenstance: were you born into a Hindu culture and/or family, you'd be Hindu and the number of gods you extoll would greatly exceed just the one.
But many others could not muster the will to overcome their trips of life, until undeniable supernatural providence intervened.From where I stand, superstition and mysticism are traps avoided by only a lucky few.
Word of mouth, edict of Rome, despotism of kings, torch of the Inquisition, and sword of colonial conquest. Yes, Jesus has quite a reputation.
The indisputable fact of history among all reputable scholars (those that aren't Christophobic Leftwing Secular Fundamentalists with a theological ax to grind)is that Jesus of Nazareth was a real rabbi who lived & taught in 1st Century AD Judea. His miracles and all resurrection are a matter of faith for those of us who are Christians and are out of the realm of empirical science.
No credable person doubts that Jesus, Paul, or James existed or that the things that happened in the new testament happened.
Troy was once thought to be a legend.
The point is many legends are based upon facts.True!
Eugentics is based on the believe certain people are worth more than others, which is a part of progressivism.Noted. I shall hold fast to the conclusion that freehating doesn't know what he's hating on, when he's hating on "progressives".
...
hold fast to that which is true.
Many legends are based upon facts
skeptic H- Eugentics is based on the believe certain people are worth more than others, which is a part of progressivism.
Neither it is survival of the best reproducing. Ultimately anything that goes extinct did not reproduce well enough.
Just that the mentally retarded and sick have the same rights as you have, and are just as valuable.Then why are they prohibited from owning and operating handguns? There's just one of many rights that I have and they do not because they are incapable of exercising those rights due to their conditions.
Thats their choice, and is not eugenics. Government telling them they cant have children, or killing those deemed inferior is eugenics and is never ethical and always leads to final solution.
I propose to show in this book that a man's natural abilities are derived by inheritance, under exactly the same limitations as are the form and physical features of the whole organic world. Consequently, as it is easy, notwithstanding those limitations, to obtain by careful selection a permanent breed of dogs or horses gifted with peculiar powers of running, or of doing anything else, so it would be quite practicable to produce a highly-gifted race of men by judicious marriages during several consecutive generations.
honest Truths
What are those?
You godders expose the true nature of your institution every time you post: The church is based uopn lies, subsists by theft, and exists by bribing weak minds with outrageous promises and the threat of eternal damnation if one of you dares to ask 'why?' and entertain any answer which is not part of Official Doctrine.
This is also more proof that you serve Darkness and not Light.
It is very revealing how quickly 'illiberals' begin accusing others of 'hate' and flinging insults.
How is "The Meaning of "Progressive" Politics" anti-intellectual?The title is not, the content is. Seriously, please up your game here, it's not even entertaining to debate with you.
Is it anti-intellectual to oppose a government system that crushes intellectual liberty?You'd have to prove intellectual liberty is being crushed. Which this link does not, hence the call of anti-intellectualism.
Is it normal in a 'peer' review to accuse the author of hate or to intentionally mis-spell the name?I don't see where I did that in my review.
Is that how 'science' works today?
In your opinion, why was the entire article content anti-intellectual? Define 'anti-intellectual'.
If Big Business was the devil of Progressive rhetoric, it was nonetheless the beneficiary of Progressive policy.Please. This is nothing more than a flowery and uneducated blog post, dummied up to look like a factual piece.
Socialists demand fairness in an economy. How is it fair when some can live at the expense of others?Such as, for example, CEOs who earn 1000x the average wage of a worker in their own company? Or the average American who enjoys a Walmart stuffed to bursting with cheap crap made by slave labor in the poisoned hinterlands overseas?
The Pilgrims thought they should live communally, but they discovered people would work harder, raising more food for all if they were appropriately compensated.Nobody argues with that. However, children and the infirm either can't, or shouldn't, work -- either lazily, or "harder". Then there's a question of what constitutes "appropriate" compensation. People like you condemn labor unions, precisely because unions demand a fair wage structure...
Nearly anyone can own shares.Spoken like a pampered dandy who's never known privation. Yeah, people on minimum wage have lots of left-over money for purchasing shares.
Putting the company out of business will surely help their workers.That's why all workers are in such strong support of free trade.
This is true. Big business has the money to lobby legislators and to absorb and influence regulations to control their competition.How do you know when marjon's lying? His mouth moves.
@Caliban, check this out:
http://www.swarmusa.com/vb4/
I hope something like this can really take off and gain momentum. Though I'm not betting the farm: this country is stuffed to the gills with apathetic, anesthetized, brainwashed human vegetables with a raging case of the Stockholm syndrome.
Great idea. You go ahead and try it; let us know how it goes.Retail investing has worked out real well over the last couple of decades
Let's try government ownership of all corporations.
Maybe THIS time it won't result in food shortages and deprivation as it has done every time it was tried before.
Recipients hopefully had a sense gratitude for the help...But not a sense of dependency. Cuz that only happens with government welfare.
These volunteers belonged to churches, mutual aid societies, etc.Which, unlike the government, have no bureaucracies, and waste no resources, because they're supernatural and superhuman, respectively. Oh, and they also don't need any accountability, and never defraud their benefactors.
Government welfare takes, inspiring resentment...Unlike church tithes, which aren't at all like the government's tax.
and then 'gives' inspiring only entitlement and dependency in the recipients.ONLY. How wonderfully and amusingly categorical.
The foundation is constructed upon a faith in God.In other words, a foundation of fraud.
Is that why you attack religion? That way you can advocate for more government control?No marjon, it's why you attack the government. You're afraid that the government will successfully compete with organized religion, and make the latter obsolete. After all, if government services are both spiritually and materially inferior, why should the needy flock to government when they can still frequent religion's trough instead?
How many were Christian?
It is a Christian society that opposes the murder of babies before they are born.
I can have faith in God and the Bible without joining or participating in any religion.Not according to the Bible you can't. Again, more self-contradiction. Your point is equally invalid here.
So since otto your an athiest, could we accuse you of being guilty of all the murders (totalling now over 100 million) caused by athiests in the name of communism?He isn't preaching communism. You are preaching christianity.
Yes, he is preaching communism.If that's what you think he's saying, then you haven't read a word of what he's written.
When someone continuously attacks a philosophy that has led to the liberation of millions of people over several hundred years, what else should I assume except he prefers state tyranny.
Active ignorance of the tremendous positive contributions made by Judeao-Christian philosophy imply Auto does not desire such positive contributions such as liberty and free markets.
Skeptic Im suprised you are following Otto. Christian theology is about liberty and freedom.Any religion that demands servitude to an almighty god is far from preaching liberty and freedom. Christians teach submission, not self control or liberty.
Christ liberated the Jews from The Law.And OJ liberated his ex-wife from her life. Saddam liberated the wealth of the Iraqis from the Iraqis, etc...
The building of schools, the abolision movement being started mainly by christian.But Christians were also OPPOSED to building of public schools, as well as OPPOSED to abolition. How come you only notice Christians who are progressive, while ignoring all the reactionary/conservative ones?
Most of the work in the past 500 years regarding liberty and capitalism was written and advocated by Christians.Sorry, but some of the most prominent advocates of such work were either atheists or Deists, and many despised Christianity in particular and organized religion in general. Consider also, who advocated AGAINST liberaty and capitalism: what religion were THEY?
As I thought, a bigot.
in the same thread! Accusing others of name calling and turning right around and doing it yourself. Nicely done sir. Thanks for the entertaining read.
Pink -- so you agree a progressive is for big government and a conservative is for small government?Progressive is for reform, conservative is for status quo. It has always been like that.
Pinkie, Puritan Christians escaped Europe for America to practice their religion free of the state.Who were they escaping FROM? What religion does the Church of England ascribe to? What religion does the Vatican represent? Which religion was persecuting the Protestants of Europe?
...blame christians for all the evils in the world, think christianity should be banned, that christians should not be allowed to express their views in public.None of us has stated anything of the sort. Your hatred has blinded you, and made you deaf.
And when conflict inevitably arises the veil quickly drops and godders show themselves for what they are, and what their religions are really for, in places like Nigeria.I think you give religion too much credit there, Otto. Genocides can be given religious justification or even religious impetus, but at their root they are not driven by religion. The underlying force of genocides, pogroms, hate, wars is not religion or lack thereof: it is tribalism.
How is expressing one's beliefs forcing them upon anyone?
Christians can only persuade. If their words make you feel bad, don't listen.
If people don't like what I write, ignore it.
The Christian cross represents pain, suffering and degradation. A sword is a common symbol of Islam. Fitting as Islam means 'submission'.
Atheist progressives seem to have no standards to live by except how they feel today.
"How do we teach them to desire the respect of the Protestant/Midwesterner over the sickening pity of the Left Coast Secularist? "
It is a Christian society that opposes the murder of babies before they are born.
Are you actively ignoring all this history or, like Auto, you are an anti-religious bigot?
As I thought, a bigot.
...which shows how pervasive tribalism is in the human psyche.That is the point you glossed over previously:
Tribalism is being successfully bred out of westerners.I don't think the latter is right.
The brightest removed from their incipient cultures to college and professionsIn college, many stay within their cliques. And their professions take them back to their cultures.
professionals shuffled arround the country for workTelepresence might alleviate that soon enough (with sufficient universal bandwidth.) Also, by far not all or even most professionals are so itinerant.
best and brightest encouraged to emigrate to westOnly a transient phase, which shall pass as the world continues to equalize economically. Within a century, it'll be over.
religious barriers to intermix mitigated by exposure to western cultureI'll give you that, but religion thrives in America more than most other countries on the planet.
dregs left back home to attritionNot so. Once China modernizes, the wave will continue onward to other 3rd-world nations.
the species is being rehomogenized, babel undoneBut most religions are insensitive to "racial" traits.
One languageThat'll take some doing. Unicode isn't helping...
one cultureOnly to an extent. Even within the "United" States, going from state to state you encounter distinct cultures. Once they have congealed, they tend to be quite resilient. Another example: Great Britain and its many distinct regions. And that's on just one relatively tiny island, which has been there for millennia... Still hasn't homogenized, has it?
one govtOh, I *really* doubt that. A loose confederation of independent states, at best. The larger the governed bloc, the more impossible it is to govern either efficiently or effectively.
one world- sustainabilityOne world, yes. Sustainability? Remains to be seen... And then, we colonize Mars =P
OK, maybe long-term world peace. Maybe...
No reason to outgrow your enemies
And NO religion. There can never be just ONE religion.Possible in the remote future (as in, centuries from now.) But not any time soon...
I see, you love the German language. Unfortunately it doesn't love you.Se parakalo - it's "Auge um Auge"/"Ed dem b'ed dem".watch literality; Auge zur Auge, Zahn zum Zahn (idiomatische Wendung?)
But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and slaughter them in my presence.
I don't see a problem with it.If you don't know German you certainly don't have a problem with otto1923's wrong German grammar.Then again, it's a southwestern dialectic he's using, along with a bit of google translate.No, it's plain wrong grammar. Because "Auge" is of neuter gender ("das Auge") which never can be preceded by a feminine form of a preposition like "zur".What are your disagreements with it?I don't disagree with using wrong language. I'm just wondering why somebody would show off with a language he has no good command of.
but even for an athiest to say this proves Jesus was violent is stretching the truth to the breaking point.Skeptic_Heretic fits the pattern of a recovering ex-Christian. For my part, I never had any religion, as neither did my parents. I don't bother debating the attributes of Jesus with Christians, any more than I'd bother debating the attributes of Vishnu with Hindus, or Buddha with Buddhists, or Baphomet with Wiccans, etc. and so forth. We might as well be discussing the character traits of Sherlock Holmes. But none of that gets us anywhere.
A funny statement for Otto: If you claim God is dead, then youve admitted that God existed...He means the concept is dead. Analogous, for example, to a concept that Earth is a half-sphere that sits on top of a giant turtle floating in an endless ocean, or, alternatively, being held up by Atlas lest it fall into the void... All these concepts still exist, but they aren't exactly viable in light of modernity.
Otto, if killing a fig tree is violent, then Im guilty of mass murder for all the trees Ive cut down.But did you cut down any trees in anger and retribution, because they've personally insulted you? I wager otto finds this tale rather hilarious; so do I... Heck, for all you know the Second Coming already happened a while ago, but the poor dude rotted away in some insane asylum for attacking daffodils...
Again, Athiests speaking in ignorance and taking things out of context.Jesus Ever-Effin' Christ...
Pink and Skeptic you are way to smart to resort to those tactics.What tactics? We're just having fun. Well, at least I am...
Please quote from the bible how Jesus looked? Was he 5 10, white, blond hair blue eyes, with a nicely trimmed beard? There is no specific description of Jesus.You might be interested in reviewing the following:
You don't spend much time in the Saarland.Doesn't matter. Do you have any evidence for your implicit claim that there is any German speaking region in the world where people use idiomatically "Auge zur Auge"? Google? Publication? Book? Any public source?
Again, Athiests speaking in ignorance and taking things out of context. Doing this is beneith those who argue against chritiantiy in an intellectually honest way. Pink and Skeptic you are way to smart to resort to those tactics.
Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father...
Gummischwanz = dildo no dialectic there sir.
When examples are provided to prove scientists can be Christian and practice science at the same time, we get 'but they were of no great repute'. Most scientists are 'of no great repute'. But two Christian scientists that come to mind are Max Planck and William D. Phillips, '97 Nobel prize, physics.
The fact that scientists can be great and be Christian has been established.
AFAIK there is nothing in modern Catholicism which contradicts scientific theoriesReally? Here's a short list that I can quickly assemble, yet I'm far from an expert on Catholicism:
polygamy, polyandry, polyamory, etc.None of these are physiologically compelled.
What are the failure rates for condoms?You forgot one: NOT to remain alive.
The only sure way NOT to contract HIV is to: NOT have sex, NOT use dirty needles and NOT have blood transfusions.
People may fail to abstain, but that is their fault.A lot lower than the failure rate of people.
What is the failure rate of condoms?
Condom users believe they are 100% safe.That would apply only to ignorant idiots. Of which, marjon, I think you're the only representative on this board...
Ignorance of reality seems to plague a lot of christianists. They also seem to blame a lot of problems on others instead of taking responsibility or helping. That story of the Jesus dude and the lepers? That just makes christianists mad.
Advocating abstinence is promoting individual responsibility.
It is people like you that blame others for limiting your behaviour. Reminds me of the whining of grounded teenagers.
Advocating abstinence is promoting individual responsibility.
It is people like you that blame others for limiting your behaviour. Reminds me of the whining of grounded teenagers.
JK: People can't support causes they believe in?
What is amusing about prop 8 is that those minorities the the liberals claim to adore voted overwhelming to oppose homosexual marriage.
MA denied citizens the right to define marriage. If the MA homosexual mafia ever allowed a vote in MA, homosexual marriage in MA would end.
The legislature refused to allow the people to vote. What were they afraid of?Oh I don't know, maybe something along the lines of Jim Crow? Ah, if only the people of the South were allowed to VOTE on miscegenation and segregation... Then we wouldn't have had to impose those draconian Federal measures, and everything would've been hunky-dory.
What is amusing about prop 8 is that those minorities the the liberals claim to adore voted overwhelming to oppose homosexual marriage.Yet another victory of religion and out-of-state special interests over justice, fairness, and rational reality. Hallelujah!
Its economy is not far behind CA.Because of homosexual marriage, no doubt.
...those who claim to be 'for the people' cheer when unaccountable state officials make laws...I always cheer for justice. Even when it's against the will of the majority.
minority blacks and Hispanics that voted against homosexual marriage in CAYou must've missed my immediately preceding comment above.
homosexual marriage is weakening the family in NorwayROFLMAO
And they won't be liberal atheistsOne more time, for the especially dim-witted: liberalism and atheism are not genetic.
When a Muslim or Mormon sues for this religious right to multiple wives, you must support that if you support judicial fiat.And you know what? I'll probably support it. In my view, the state shouldn't be messing with issues of marriage in the first place. Barring that, it has to be impartial.
That will accelerate the number of believersYou afraid of a little more freedom, marjon?
You afraid of a little more freedom, marjon?
The people who are afraid of liberty are those who depend upon liberal judges to force their 'values' upon others.
1. I support the end of special government privilege or recognition of marriage.Wow! I agree with marjon... The end of the world has arrived, people.
2. If voters decide that the government has valid reasons to recognize and sanction marriage, then the people in that government have the right and obligation to define 'marriage'.But, this right is circumscribed (at least in U.S.) by Constitutional guarantees of nondiscrimination and equal protection. IOW, fairness.
This path essentially makes the definition of 'marriage' whatever anyone wants it to be.But that's what it SHOULD be. At least, that's what it should be in a country with freedom of religion. The key word being FREEDOM.
they have a long way to go to obtain social acceptance.Every road, no matter how long or winding, has a beginning. And by the way, younger generations are much more accepting of homosexual rights. Progress is inevitable, if for no other reason, than the old bigots dieing off...
Was it fair for the WA teacher who had an affair and eventually married a student to go to jail for rape? Your argument is specious.No, YOUR argument is specious. With respect to marriage, we're always talking about:
If marriage has no definition, then it ceases to exist as a concept.BS. Marriage has many definitions. Polygamy is definitely among them.
Homosexuals may obtain some satisfaction that they have legal recognition of marriage, but they have a long way to go to obtain social acceptance
When was 'marriage' required for consenting adults to sleep together?When fathers were considered owners of their daughters, and as such were only willing to trade such property for a proper dowry.
What value does or did it add to society and why should it be discarded?You poor, confused thing.
Why is official recognition so important?Because of the economic benefits and legal rights conferred by the state, that come with the official recognition.
Why is official recognition so important?
That just looks like someone could dump a lot of time into something for absolutely no gain.A discussion with intelligent sparring partners is always a gain for me.
Ever hear of civil unions?
If marriage is an absolute right, then it cannot be denied for any reason. Including age and current marital status.Except where children don't have the same rights that adults do.
LKD
Feb 24, 2010