|
1097
|
Social Discussions / Philosophy and Religion / Re: debating for knowledge or for freedom of speech
|
on: October 19, 2007, 11:41:05 AM
|
I always find it interesting to wander into the P&R forum, so many varying people and points of view, so much passion. We're so much alike in so many ways as we debate the existence or lack there of, of a God.
Yes it's comical in some ways as it always seems to boil down to
God ~ as in the Christian version of God Agnostic & Atheism
we don't seem to spend much time discussing other religions, it's always where you sit in the field.
Are you in God's court, or the Atheism court OR are you on the fence meaning you haven't decided but really you have because by not deciding there is a God it means you have chosen the other camp, whether you believe it or not.
And for what it's worth it NEVER EVER EVER seems to matter what the topic title is as it will always be the same people and it will always boil down to the same thing. A new spin of words but essentially they are the same.
So really then if it's always the same then why the debate? Have you found some new information? Are you wanting new information? hhhmmm that would mean you would actually be looking for knowledge, yet that I have hardly seen in these parts. It's all seems to boil down to your freedom of speech. It all boils down to what you think you need to say to back your stance (it doesn't matter what camp you belong to as you're all the same). Like you have a right to share even when people don't want that they are looking for something new.
I have to wonder if ever someone will actually sit back and take in what they read, meditate on it for a bit before they spew their pre recorded response. I some how doubt this. I so wish that we as a mature and educated people would take in what others have to say and consider it before they actually react.
Just my thought. So why are you here I ask? Is it for knowledge and understanding or is it for your right to share whatever you please regardless of what others have to say about it?
What's the purpose of any debate tara? Should we just close down IAP because people are debating rather than 'meditating' on other people's POV? For me, the purpose of debating here is to test my beliefs against other people's ideas as well as just for the sake of debating.
|
|
|
|
|
1099
|
Social Discussions / Philosophy and Religion / Re: Everything happens for a reason.
|
on: October 19, 2007, 11:13:46 AM
|
I am saying it is utterly ridiculous to believe you know that everything does or does not happen for a reason simply because one can't quite "reason it out".
You are the only one claiming that anyone has said that. I doubt you'll find one person on the planet who believes that since it is self-evidently illogical.
|
|
|
|
|
1101
|
Social Discussions / Philosophy and Religion / Re: Atheism: the real beef
|
on: October 18, 2007, 01:09:06 PM
|
There's only so many times we can explain this to you Baldar. Listen carefully.
Atheism is the lack of theism. Hence the name. This is the definition that every atheist here agrees on. The traditional meaning for atheist dates many hundreds of years back and was intended to be distinct from both theist and agnostic. That you folks insist on a redefinition that groups the traditional atheist with the traditional agnostic is the root of this debate. What is the motivation for conflating these terms and attempting to subsume agnostics into the ranks of atheists? Because I am an agnostic who wishes to be subsumed into the ranks of atheism.
|
|
|
|
|
1102
|
Social Discussions / Philosophy and Religion / Re: What is criminal justice?
|
on: October 18, 2007, 12:59:09 PM
|
No. It is dangerously close to saying "Let's have a sane and rational policy instead of sentiment and white liberal guilt and cultural marxism.". Indeed the truth is dangerous.
OswaldTheOsprey
Here we go with the old cultural marxism stuff again. No doubt I'm also a Trotskyite Neocon or whatever other names you're tossing around. It is not sentimental to say that eugenics is morally disgusting. In a eugenically perfect world you or I would not be allowed to exist. Once we kill all the poor black kids in the Bronx us normal (well me anyway) people would be the dangerous ones so our kind would need to be wiped out too. Some of us consider overbreeding (and the resultant crime and poverty) by the stupid, the ignorant, the criminal and the greedy to be morally disgusting. Eugenics is not about "killing black kids". It is about humane and rational planning for a better Motherland. OswaldTheOsprey Yes but eugenics is more than just stopping overpopulation (which I could just about agree with depending on how it is carried out) - it's deliberately selecting a certain class of people and declaring them unfit to breed. Who are you/we/anyone to decide what constitutes a valid life? Decision have to be made and they are not always pleasant. What do you know of Eugenic history? Are you aware that Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson endorsed the concept as did Margaret Sanger, the great birth control pioneer, H.G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw and other great and notable intellects. One of the problems facing Eugenics today is two loud and ruthless opponents it faces-the politically correct left and the religious right. Hopefully, the days are numbered for both of these arrogant bullies. Hopefully, sane and rational thought will prevail. OswaldTheOsprey Your list doesn't impress me. You didn't answer my question.
|
|
|
|
|
1104
|
Social Discussions / Sports and Entertainment / Re: What are you listening to?
|
on: October 16, 2007, 11:55:36 AM
|
Well, considering that most of Tool's music is taken straight from Ride The Lighting and Master of Puppets, I can't see how a Tool fan wouldn't like Metallica. It's like being a Green Day fan who doesn't like the Clash, or a Creed fan who doesn't like Pearl Jam.
I don't see the link as that strong.
|
|
|
|
|
1105
|
Social Discussions / Philosophy and Religion / Re: What is criminal justice?
|
on: October 16, 2007, 11:53:12 AM
|
No. It is dangerously close to saying "Let's have a sane and rational policy instead of sentiment and white liberal guilt and cultural marxism.". Indeed the truth is dangerous.
OswaldTheOsprey
Here we go with the old cultural marxism stuff again. No doubt I'm also a Trotskyite Neocon or whatever other names you're tossing around. It is not sentimental to say that eugenics is morally disgusting. In a eugenically perfect world you or I would not be allowed to exist. Once we kill all the poor black kids in the Bronx us normal (well me anyway) people would be the dangerous ones so our kind would need to be wiped out too. Some of us consider overbreeding (and the resultant crime and poverty) by the stupid, the ignorant, the criminal and the greedy to be morally disgusting. Eugenics is not about "killing black kids". It is about humane and rational planning for a better Motherland. OswaldTheOsprey Yes but eugenics is more than just stopping overpopulation (which I could just about agree with depending on how it is carried out) - it's deliberately selecting a certain class of people and declaring them unfit to breed. Who are you/we/anyone to decide what constitutes a valid life?
|
|
|
|
|
1106
|
Social Discussions / Philosophy and Religion / Re: Atheism: the real beef
|
on: October 16, 2007, 11:49:36 AM
|
using the atheists' choice of definitions what's the difference between agnosticism and weak atheism? [Agnostics] do not know whether or not God exists but do not believe in God's existence.
Atheism is simply a lack of belief or being without theism. 'cause these two seem very similar to me. They are quite similar - practically synonyms. Atheism is a blanket term for all forms of unbelief in God. Agnosticism/weak atheism and positive atheism are different types.
|
|
|
|
|
1107
|
Social Discussions / Sports and Entertainment / Re: What are you listening to?
|
on: October 16, 2007, 11:46:29 AM
|
Metallica - Loverman
I've come to the conclusion that Metallica is the greatest band in the world, by the way.
Metallica suck. If it weren't for them, there'd be no Tool. Doesn't mean I have to like them no more than I have to like a caveman banging a drum and shouting.
|
|
|
|
|
1109
|
Political Discussions / The Environment / Incineration Good/Bad?
|
on: October 16, 2007, 11:29:18 AM
|
|
We have a bit of a debate going on in Ireland right now about incineration. Our Minister for the Environment (Green Party) is against incineration. Pre-election he promised that he would not allow an incinerator to be built in his constituency but now he's changed his mind.
Anyway, my question is: is incineration good or bad for the environment? I'm currently on the pro-incineration side.
|
|
|
|
|