We need Ron Paul as president To save American

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
  1. #31
    Olpah's Object Reputation: 284
    hian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    JAAAPAAAAAN
    Posts
    2,723
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    I'd vote for Obama if I could. Or if I was really politically interested I'd try to gather a crowd and create a demonstration against the incompetancy of candidates and the general U.S electorate, by launching anti-voting campaigns. Probably nothing would change, but still, it's a matter of principle.

    Quote Originally Posted by olaph View Post
    Which is why the smart countries have compulsory voting.
    You have an example of a country like that?
    In any case, the problem with voting isn't that people don't vote - It's that there are 10 idiots to counteract every 1 smart voter.
    If anything, we should restrict voting by demanding that anyone who wants to vote must first engage in some sort of written test to prove that the person knows the issues enough to make an informed opinion on who to vote for.

    Quote Originally Posted by bonneau_14 View Post
    I know. It's stupid people who do stupid things. Religion is a great thing when it's not being abused. I wish more people would examine religion from a more logical stand-point, instead of buying into the typical brainwashed-for-years magical nonsense.
    This is completely counter-productive thinking, and certainly not a logical standpoint.
    Are you implying then that people are born stupid, and that they somehow tend to end up being religious? Blaming the bad in religion on "stupid" people makes no sense what so ever. How did the people get "stupid" to begin with?
    In any case, what is so great about religion?

    What you refer to as "brainwashed for years" is actually fits the bill much better in terms of what we know from science on the minds of religious people, although I agree that exact phrasing might be an exaggeration.

    Years of unchecked acceptance of faith claims, enforced by authoritarian figures, and conformation biases in combationation with an attitude lacking consistant critical thinking is a necessity for unfounded belief structures like religious to function.

    Does this mean all religious people are stupid, or "brainwashed"? No, but it says something about a quality which all religious people share, whether they belong to the extremist factions or not - namely that they are all intellectually dishonest and labouring under a system kept in check by their ignorance, rather than their knowledge.

    The "logical" way of looking at religion in light of this, is as a system better to forgo, than to keep.

    Quote Originally Posted by bonneau_14 View Post
    Magic and Gods were a necessity. It explained everything they didn't understand, and what people don't understand, they fear. People yearned for answers and purpose... They had no real way of finding that, but religion/magic could provide a placebo effect. Ignorance is bliss, right?
    Nope. They were never necessary.
    Providing someone a wrong explanation for something, is factually equal to explaining nothing. Explaining nothing, is not a necessity.

    Although some people might fear what they don't understand or what they don't know, humanity have several ways of combating that fear appart from religion that makes more sense - One is called acceptance of ignorance, the other is callled science.
    Religion and magical "explanations" are intellectually lazy cop-outs of people who spun magical tales out of simple phenomenon because they lived dreary existences fighting for their lives one inch at a time in a dark and hostile environment - It was one way of dealing with the shait they experienced.
    However, just because it was a function of the old mankind, does not mean it was good, smart, or that it's worth keeping around except as a cultural/historical oddity.

    Quote Originally Posted by hybridchic View Post
    Religion offers a set of morale for living a happy prosperous life.
    wut? I hope for gods sake you're refering to Buddhism, or something to that effect.
    Most religion are morally bankrupt because they are internally inconsistant, and try to enforce morality - not by appealing to empathy and common ground - But by threating us with punishment, promising us rewards, or simply asserting moral statements as gospel truth because some divine entity has decreed it.

    Quote Originally Posted by xBlazex View Post
    Reglion is actally law tool to make people think before they do somthing they would regrat back thousand of year ago. Reglion still teach you to be nice people and treat them respec but super Reglions people cant see over that they think they need force fake law they made up in reglions
    Religion doesn't effectually make people do much in and of itself.
    Whenever you read a moral statement in a book, you make a judgement yourself, on the basis of past experience etc, whether you take that sentence to heart or not.
    Reading in the bible that killing is wrong, isn't going to change your mind in and of itself.
    This why religious people often have deeply divergent moralities(some people saying homosexuals should be killed etc). Moral judgements come from the individual, not the religion. The religion only serves as buffer in that confirms the views of the person engaging in it, and strengthens them.

    That's why "religion provides morality" is a completely moot point. Humans provide morality, with basis in our upbringing and faculty for empathy.

    When a religious person hates gays, it's not because he is religious - It is because he has a hatred for gays, that his religion reflects that hate.
    Some religions serve as better buffers for hatred than others though, because the lore is less clear, and more violent(the Abrahamic Religions in particular).
    Last edited by hian; 01-20-2012 at 01:35 PM.

    The Common Sense United Front
    ZAZAZAZAAAA, DADADADAAAA DAAAA, SHWAMSHWAMSHWAMMMM DUUUU DIIIII DAAAAAAAAAA

  2. #32
    Keyboard Warrior Reputation: 193
    Raiyne's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    The Middle of the Stairs
    Posts
    13,571
    Rep Power
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hian View Post
    You have an example of a country like that?
    In any case, the problem with voting isn't that people don't vote - It's that there are 10 idiots to counteract every 1 smart voter.
    If anything, we should restrict voting by demanding that anyone who wants to vote must first engage in some sort of written test to prove that the person knows the issues enough to make an informed opinion on who to vote for.
    This. Seriously.

    Everytime I post, I think Murph is about to BROFIST me. -- Loric
    Last.fm
    Hey Raiyne

  3. #33
    Banned Reputation: 101

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    4,865
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hian View Post
    This is completely counter-productive thinking, and certainly not a logical standpoint.
    Are you implying then that people are born stupid, and that they somehow tend to end up being religious? Blaming the bad in religion on "stupid" people makes no sense what so ever. How did the people get "stupid" to begin with?
    In any case, what is so great about religion?

    What you refer to as "brainwashed for years" is actually fits the bill much better in terms of what we know from science on the minds of religious people, although I agree that exact phrasing might be an exaggeration.

    Years of unchecked acceptance of faith claims, enforced by authoritarian figures, and conformation biases in combationation with an attitude lacking consistant critical thinking is a necessity for unfounded belief structures like religious to function.

    Does this mean all religious people are stupid, or "brainwashed"? No, but it says something about a quality which all religious people share, whether they belong to the extremist factions or not - namely that they are all intellectually dishonest and labouring under a system kept in check by their ignorance, rather than their knowledge.

    The "logical" way of looking at religion in light of this, is as a system better to forgo, than to keep.



    Nope. They were never necessary.
    Providing someone a wrong explanation for something, is factually equal to explaining nothing. Explaining nothing, is not a necessity.

    Although some people might fear what they don't understand or what they don't know, humanity have several ways of combating that fear appart from religion that makes more sense - One is called acceptance of ignorance, the other is callled science.
    Religion and magical "explanations" are intellectually lazy cop-outs of people who spun magical tales out of simple phenomenon because they lived dreary existences fighting for their lives one inch at a time in a dark and hostile environment - It was one way of dealing with the shait they experienced.
    However, just because it was a function of the old mankind, does not mean it was good, smart, or that it's worth keeping around except as a cultural/historical oddity.



    wut? I hope for gods sake you're refering to Buddhism, or something to that effect.
    Most religion are morally bankrupt because they are internally inconsistant, and try to enforce morality - not by appealing to empathy and common ground - But by threating us with punishment, promising us rewards, or simply asserting moral statements as gospel truth because some divine entity has decreed it.



    Religion doesn't effectually make people do much in and of itself.
    Whenever you read a moral statement in a book, you make a judgement yourself, on the basis of past experience etc, whether you take that sentence to heart or not.
    Reading in the bible that killing is wrong, isn't going to change your mind in and of itself.
    This why religious people often have deeply divergent moralities(some people saying homosexuals should be killed etc). Moral judgements come from the individual, not the religion. The religion only serves as buffer in that confirms the views of the person engaging in it, and strengthens them.

    That's why "religion provides morality" is a completely moot point. Humans provide morality, with basis in our upbringing and faculty for empathy.

    When a religious person hates gays, it's not because he is religious - It is because he has a hatred for gays, that his religion reflects that hate.
    Some religions serve as better buffers for hatred than others though, because the lore is less clear, and more violent(the Abrahamic Religions in particular).
    I read about 10%, laughing too hard to continue.

  4. #34
    Crumbly, yet Good Reputation: 75
    Eriond's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    1,798
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Ron Paul is a creationist. 'Nuff said. While I'm not saying you can't be a creationist and have realistic policies, it's somewhat indicative of how far you're willing to take something, based on absolutely nothing.
    THIS MA SIGNATURE

  5. #35
    Fabio_R's Fruitcup Reputation: 91
    Akeras's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,620
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xBlazex View Post
    really we dont need gay Marriage. we need to fix american first
    Just.......just......just ****ing shut up right god damn now. Just stop blaze, just ****ing think about what you say for once in your life.

    People like you ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM IN AMERICA CURRENTLY.

    Jesus ****ing christ, saying we don't need legal gay marriage in America is like saying we don't need equal rights.


    Edit: Ugh sorry, just every time Blaze makes some political post it never fails to piss me right the hell off.
    Last edited by Akeras; 01-21-2012 at 02:00 AM.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cingal View Post
    Generally, if the game has characters which would put you on an FBI watchlist, you're playing an Asian game.

  6. #36
    Phantom's Freak Reputation: 178
    Hizumi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    2,519
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    lol marriage isnt really needed anyway, it was never meant to be between ONE man and ONE woman lol. women were basically property fyi blaze.

    [01:54] Hyst (cstrikermx): it's just im tired of all this
    [01:54] Hyst (cstrikermx): women need to know
    [01:54] Hyst (cstrikermx): chivalry never existed
    [01:54] Hyst (cstrikermx): knights were bastards to everyone
    [01:56] Riz (rizev): What about...
    [01:56] Riz (rizev): JEDI knights?

  7. #37
    Bladin's Sword Sharpener Reputation: 35
    Dot_Hack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Under Your Sheets!
    Posts
    1,190
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hizumi View Post
    lol marriage isnt really needed anyway, it was never meant to be between ONE man and ONE woman lol. women were basically property fyi blaze.
    Does that mean that I can finally marry my PS3?

    On topic: Eriond, I would be just as afraid of a beilever of the BB Theory. I love science and I think that it will eventually answer many of our life's question (i.e. how did we get here?), but you must also understand that for the specific theory of how the universe and life started, science and religion are in the same boat.

    God created everything > Never been proven or observed
    Big Bang Theory > Never been proven or observed
    (Or really any guess of how the universe started)

    God created Adam and Eve > Never been proven or observed
    Evolution > Never been proven or observed.

    Now, I will admit that science has at least followed a more logical path, the truth still remains that all theories and ideas, both scientific and religious, about how the earth came to be are still yet to be proven, so in all honesty I would be afraid of creationists and evolutionists.

    Also, as a side note, I know that there is actual evidence that may prove both evolution and the BB theory to be true, but as we've seen with the latest Higgs Boson debacle, just because there is evidence that supports the idea, doesn't always mean that you're following the right path.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hizumi View Post
    lol marriage isnt really needed anyway, it was never meant to be between ONE man and ONE woman lol. women were basically property fyi blaze.
    Quote Originally Posted by V-Opolis View Post
    or sick as in she got Leonidas drop kicked in the stomach by a cop? In which case i can agree.

  8. #38
    Crumbly, yet Good Reputation: 75
    Eriond's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    1,798
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dot_Hack View Post
    Does that mean that I can finally marry my PS3?
    Nope, 'cause PS3s can't form legal contracts (nor can animals, children, etc..).

    On topic: Eriond, I would be just as afraid of a beilever of the BB Theory. I love science and I think that it will eventually answer many of our life's question (i.e. how did we get here?), but you must also understand that for the specific theory of how the universe and life started, science and religion are in the same boat.

    God created everything > Never been proven or observed
    Big Bang Theory > Never been proven or observed
    (Or really any guess of how the universe started)

    God created Adam and Eve > Never been proven or observed
    Evolution > Never been proven or observed.

    Now, I will admit that science has at least followed a more logical path, the truth still remains that all theories and ideas, both scientific and religious, about how the earth came to be are still yet to be proven, so in all honesty I would be afraid of creationists and evolutionists.

    Also, as a side note, I know that there is actual evidence that may prove both evolution and the BB theory to be true, but as we've seen with the latest Higgs Boson debacle, just because there is evidence that supports the idea, doesn't always mean that you're following the right path.
    While you are, of course, entitled to believe, whatever you wish to believe, you must know that the scientific consensus on evolution is absolutely, crazilly, overwhelming, to the point that is as close to a proven theory as a theory of such a nature is likely to get. To reject such an overwhelming scientific consensus would require you to make some logical argument and present evidence to back up your claims; creationism does not do this.

    And while you do have a point about the whole beginning of the universe thing, that there are indeed large gaps in our understanding, it doesn't mean that the theories we currently have are flat out wrong (this is extremely unlikely, infact, though possible).

    I'll use the theory of gravity as an analogy here. Newton's theory of gravity was, according to all (I think) of the observations he could make, correct. It reasonably accurately described the motions of the planets, objects, etc.. However, for extremely precise measurements, and special circumstances, the theory is inaccurate; we use instead General Relativity to calculate the effects of gravity today when we want precision. However, even though they are wrong, we still do use Newton's laws to calculate gravity's effects when we don't care about being too precise!

    This doesn't mean that Newton theory was completely wrong; rather, we simply have to adjust it to account for new observations. So while scientists today do not accept Newton's theory of gravitation as being accurate, you'd be hard pressed to find someone who wasn't a 'believer' in gravity. Simply because these theories are not 'proven', as it is impossible to prove a theory is accurate in all cases, since we cannot observe everywhere, is not a reason to not accept them as the most reasonable explanation, and, for all intents and purposes, act as if they are 'true'; especially when they have the sheer amount of evidence behind them that evolution and the BB do. (though of course, the jury is still out on just what started the BB )

    Basically, for me, it boils down to this. Saying you are just as afraid of someone who accepts the scientific consensus on a topic, be it evolution, or cosmology, as someone who accepts a theory that is not based on evidence, to me, is crazy.

    It's like saying you're just as worried about someone who claims, based on past experience, that when someone lets go of a rock, it will fall to the ground, as someone who claims that the same rock will fly away into the sky, for no reason. One person is reasonable, and extrapolating from observed fact, and the other is insane.

    Will this rock always, in absolutely all circumstances, fall to the ground? No, possibly not. But you can be damn sure that in almost all cases, it will. Does the guy who believes the rock will fly away have a right to believe what does? Of course he does. But I'd rather have the person who thinks the rock will fall making decisions on my behalf, be it as a president, senator, congressman, member of parliament, etc.. then the guy who pontificates about flying rocks.
    Last edited by Eriond; 01-21-2012 at 03:52 PM.
    THIS MA SIGNATURE

  9. #39
    Banned Reputation: 101

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    4,865
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hizumi View Post
    lol marriage isnt really needed anyway, it was never meant to be between ONE man and ONE woman lol. women were basically property fyi blaze.
    The word queer used to mean: odd, different, weird, and peculiar.

  10. #40
    Bladin's Sword Sharpener Reputation: 35
    Dot_Hack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Under Your Sheets!
    Posts
    1,190
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eriond View Post
    Nope, 'cause PS3s can't form legal contracts (nor can animals, children, etc..).



    While you are, of course, entitled to believe, whatever you wish to believe, you must know that the scientific consensus on evolution is absolutely, crazilly, overwhelming, to the point that is as close to a proven theory as a theory of such a nature is likely to get. To reject such an overwhelming scientific consensus would require you to make some logical argument and present evidence to back up your claims; creationism does not do this.

    And while you do have a point about the whole beginning of the universe thing, that there are indeed large gaps in our understanding, it doesn't mean that the theories we currently have are flat out wrong (this is extremely unlikely, infact, though possible).

    I'll use the theory of gravity as an analogy here. Newton's theory of gravity was, according to all (I think) of the observations he could make, correct. It reasonably accurately described the motions of the planets, objects, etc.. However, for extremely precise measurements, and special circumstances, the theory is inaccurate; we use instead General Relativity to calculate the effects of gravity today when we want precision. However, even though they are wrong, we still do use Newton's laws to calculate gravity's effects when we don't care about being too precise!

    This doesn't mean that Newton theory was completely wrong; rather, we simply have to adjust it to account for new observations. So while scientists today do not accept Newton's theory of gravitation as being accurate, you'd be hard pressed to find someone who wasn't a 'believer' in gravity. Simply because these theories are not 'proven', as it is impossible to prove a theory is accurate in all cases, since we cannot observe everywhere, is not a reason to not accept them as the most reasonable explanation, and, for all intents and purposes, act as if they are 'true'; especially when they have the sheer amount of evidence behind them that evolution and the BB do. (though of course, the jury is still out on just what started the BB )

    Basically, for me, it boils down to this. Saying you are just as afraid of someone who accepts the scientific consensus on a topic, be it evolution, or cosmology, as someone who accepts a theory that is not based on evidence, to me, is crazy.

    It's like saying you're just as worried about someone who claims, based on past experience, that when someone lets go of a rock, it will fall to the ground, as someone who claims that the same rock will fly away into the sky, for no reason. One person is reasonable, and extrapolating from observed fact, and the other is insane.

    Will this rock always, in absolutely all circumstances, fall to the ground? No, possibly not. But you can be damn sure that in almost all cases, it will. Does the guy who believes the rock will fly away have a right to believe what does? Of course he does. But I'd rather have the person who thinks the rock will fall making decisions on my behalf, be it as a president, senator, congressman, member of parliament, etc.. then the guy who pontificates about flying rocks.
    I understand what you're saying, and I dont disagree. The only point that I was trying to make is that people need to stop believing in Absolutes (other than death, which IMO is the only Absolute). As in, people need to stop putting 100% of their faith in either science and religion, because both can change.

    The example I was trying to provide was of the Standard Model of particle physics. This is a theory that some claim to be 99% proven, but recently scientist are beginning to believe that there is no Higgs Boson particle, therefore making the SM useless (until it is changed).

    Before I make my next claim I hope that we can both agree that there are no Absolutes in science. Science is a field that is always growing and changing, thus no scientific theory can forever be true without altering it.

    I think humans are flawed. When we begin to believe in something it begins to blind us. If something was to oppose our way of thought, we tend to ignore or deny it (i.e. battles vs religion and science). In order for us to evolve fully without bias, I think that we should look into all ideas, but at the same time realize that they may not be true, thus we shouldn't base our future on something that is questionable.

    I know this may sound stupid, but it's what I believe. If we, as humans, want to better ourselves we must understand that these laws are true, but at the same time, we need to keep looking past these theories of science and by doing that we can better ourselves.

    Take the case of the bacteria : Helicobacter pylori. This bacteria was discovered in the 1970/80s ( I dont remember the exact time), but it took the scientific community about 10 years to accept that it was this bacteria that caused ulcers. Previously, scientists thought that it was excess stomach acid that caused ulcers, so they ignored the results even though they were true. If people cant let go of what they believe in (even in the scientific community) than we only stifle our own evolution.

    TL;DR I think that only thing that is Absolute is Death. Everything else should be taken with a grain of salt.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hizumi View Post
    lol marriage isnt really needed anyway, it was never meant to be between ONE man and ONE woman lol. women were basically property fyi blaze.
    Quote Originally Posted by V-Opolis View Post
    or sick as in she got Leonidas drop kicked in the stomach by a cop? In which case i can agree.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •