 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14
|
|
1
|
Political Discussions / United States / Re: Obama to declare victory May 20
|
on: May 13, 2008, 06:12:59 AM
|
By definition a conservative is one who wishes to conserve... the constitution, the environment, public education, public protections, civil rights, democracy...etc.
The republicon party now mostly wishes to erode, challenge, change or do away with all these things in the name of the free market and the economic growth of big business. In recent history to be a republicon is to be a radical, the polar opposite of conservative. IMO republicons of late could better be described as free market anarchists. The only thing they truly want to "conserve" are their profit margins.
that just about sums it up  |
|
|
|
|
2
|
Social Discussions / Philosophy and Religion / Re: Before Darwin
|
on: May 06, 2008, 12:03:01 PM
|
before Scientific rationalism I don't think we could really apply "rationality" as we now define it.
Indeed. Those ancient Greeks were idiots and not worth paying attention to. so you don't think that the Greeks had aspects of Scientific Rationalism? |
|
|
|
|
3
|
Political Discussions / Europe and Asia / Re: a chinese wanna say something about tibet
|
on: May 06, 2008, 06:21:09 AM
|
P.S. This talk about forming the right world view sounds creepy and totalitarian to me.
That's because it is creepy and totalitarian. Brought to you by the creepiest totalitarian regime on the globe... (2nd only to N.Korea of course). false... North Korea is FAR worse than China ever was. Jesus people get your heads straight, China isn't a model democracy but it works far better than the imperialism that had ravaged it before Communism. If we are going to lecture Chinese about subversion of their own people then we should consider the subversion and terror the U.S. has unleashed as well. China is not the worst nation that we trade with... |
|
|
|
|
4
|
Political Discussions / United States / Re: Why Did Russia invade Afghanistan?
|
on: May 05, 2008, 06:29:55 AM
|
I was wondering, if anyone could tell me...........
Why did Russia invade Afghanistan and why was it so important to the USA that they not succeed?
So important that we were willing to give billions of dollars and weapons to scumbags?
Why? What is so important about Afghanistan?
first off Russia did not invade Afghan they got thier asses whipped. US looked to Russia not to succeed in Afghan the same way Russia looks to ensure the US does not succeed in Iraq. Its politics....Its all politics.... actually Russia did pretty well until we starting helping the Afghans shoot down their choppers. And Russia isn't exactly hurting us the way we hurt them, we did way more damage. If anyone is opposing us in Iraq it is Iran, Syria and citizens in Saudi Arabia. |
|
|
|
|
5
|
Social Discussions / Philosophy and Religion / Re: The Big One...
|
on: May 05, 2008, 06:02:26 AM
|
During discussions on the existence of god coverts and atheists have presumably been made. I'd suggest this is enough reason to discuss Him. Precisely why I said the topic is of interest primarily to partisans. well in case you missed it, partisans run the world |
|
|
|
|
6
|
Political Discussions / General Politics / Re: A Snapshot Of Western Society!
|
on: May 04, 2008, 03:34:04 PM
|
|
Well My 7 pm is normally pretty cool.
I'm done with classes, probably finishing up the last of my essays due tomorrow. Maybe I'll tune into the news... naa, too biased on this channel, to dumb on the others. Play some video games for a bit, then lacrosse practice. Get back around 9. Have a drink and wait for the Daily Show to come on.
A good end to the day in my part of Western Society.
|
|
|
|
|
7
|
Social Discussions / Philosophy and Religion / Re: The Big One...
|
on: May 04, 2008, 03:19:45 PM
|
|
If anything the question of God's existince is the MOST important. Nearly all questions of metaphysics and morality stem from this. If God exists in some form then he dictates "truth", if not then truth must be approached in other ways. God is THE fundamental question
|
|
|
|
|
9
|
Social Discussions / Philosophy and Religion / Re: The Big One...
|
on: May 02, 2008, 06:08:59 AM
|
I don't believe God exists, but if it does...than that's not a topic of debate anywhere.
It will be between me and him, not anyone's else business.
BTW, why people feel the need to talk about God's existence?
If you are a believer, than you are a sinner by even trying to question his existence.
If you are a non-believer it makes no sense to even start the conversation.
Because it's a fun exercise in futility and, it passes the time between classes quite nicely |
|
|
|
|
10
|
Political Discussions / United States / Re: A Radical In The White House - (abortion)
|
on: April 23, 2008, 09:25:52 AM
|
3 Candidates (Tancredo, Huckabee and Brownback) at the Republican Primary Debate in May raised their hand and agreed that evolution does not exist. If by 'evolution' one means fish eventually sprouted legs and arms and came trodding up the beach onto land, count me in their group. No, fish stayed in the water. Reptiles and mammals "crawled out" |
|
|
|
|
11
|
Political Discussions / Europe and Asia / Re: a chinese wanna say something about tibet
|
on: April 23, 2008, 08:08:02 AM
|
Hi, Welcome to the forum.
Poeple from every countries are welcome here.
Please,in the future do not open a new thread when a topic already exist. There is a topic on TIBET right here.
I don't realy agree with you on Mao (and communisim in general). He was a disaster for China and for Tibet.
Normal that Tibetians were not happy.
FALSE! about Mao that is. He was a great boon for China and created a great boost in the post-war Chinese society until the Hundred Flowers movement. The shattered Chinese economy grew at 18.7% in industrial sectors and 3.8% for agriculture. However he, like all dictators, grew so concerned about his power that he forgot about the people. This is not to say that the GMD couldn't have done the same As far as Tibet goes... Tibet hasn't been independant as a nation, theocracy or kingdom for about 1000 years. With one de facto exception between the two world wars, where China was essentially a mish-mash of tribal lords fighting each other and the Japanese occupation. Still, the politically violent oppression of Tibet is not an acceptable norm. It's not acceptable because the U.S. isn't doin it |
|
|
|
|
12
|
Social Discussions / Philosophy and Religion / Re: Morality w/o God
|
on: April 23, 2008, 06:37:05 AM
|
|
My point was not to say that we should act as "good little Darwinists", in fact that would likley lead to more Social Darwinism. My attempt was to explain that what morality, and immorality, we have are PRODUCTS of evolution. The fact that we feel bad when we see people or animals suffer is a product of evolution. Somehow morality has indeed survived either because it is benificial to society or as an accidental outgrowth of it.
It is evolutionarily a good thing that we do not wantonly murder each other, the basic instinct which makes us moral is deep within our genes and we are making attempts on this forum to discover just what that is.
However those same genes that make us good parents and moral people also instil a sense of xenophobia and the ability to commit horrible injustices. We have exactly the morality, and immorality that evolved primates would have. We are helpfull and moral to those within our group and dangerously violent to those outside of our groups.
|
|
|
|
|
13
|
Social Discussions / Philosophy and Religion / Re: Morality w/o God
|
on: April 21, 2008, 10:01:03 AM
|
|
Furthermore you could also make a case for murder as circumstancially non-immoral. Defining particular actions do not nessicarilly make something immoral, it is only one aspect.
---------------
If we are going to propose a morality without God then we must make asumptions about what defines morality on a deeper level. I will propose that it should be evolutionary as we are indeed talking about evolved animals. Evolutionary forces have determined what is the proper philosophical basis for behavior so as to create a successful species. Evolution gives us basic positive norms which help us survive as a species. It does not provide the 'ideal' as evolutionary processes have a lagging effect because it selects on the basis of genetics.
Similarly we can make attempts at an 'ideal' on a cultural level by selecting the norms and cultural ideas that best suit our humanity.
|
|
|
|
|
14
|
Social Discussions / Philosophy and Religion / Re: How my (athiest) view of religion has recently changed
|
on: April 11, 2008, 07:11:30 PM
|
Religion, science and philosophy are 3 different approaches for trying to explain the origin of life. Sometimes they complement each other, but more often disagree with each other. Most important is that none came with a clear answer about how the universe started in the beginning.
All that apart... my Atheist God, with His clear scientific, majestic greatness, showed me the real path to Enlightenment.
Who are you to question His wisdom?
I think someone has a poor understanding of Atheism |
|
|
|
|
