Not to worry Soulsick, God loves you anyway.
Oh tenacious, you are too cute!
Not to worry Erkolos, God can handle it... his followers too , although some do unfortunately have a bit more difficulty with the criticism I suppose. If I measured God strictly by what is written in the Bible I'd probably have a bit of trouble with him myself. Personnally I prefer to see him in my niece's new baby and the beauty of the day rather than in what man has written of him. Man is fallible, after all.
Ando
I didn't know Jews didn't believe in heaven or hell.... that is very interesting to me, especially given Hrick's view of things. Thanks
Mom
I thought the Judaism belief included the same "judgment day" of sorts as Christians, they just don't believe the Messiah has come yet??????
Mom
uh-oh. Christianity and politics both in the same thread.
.... I like John McCain
Mom
Well we certainly can't accuse Rudi of being that (over religious). Can't very well argue with how he handled 9-11 though, even if he's made a muck of his personal life. Is this his 3rd wife or 4th?
As to McCain.. Right wing or no, I think the guy has integrity (can't say as that means I'd vote for him) He backed the continuation of the war , right or wrong, despite the fact he knows it is political death, just because he believes it is the "right" thing to do. He's moral with regard to his personal code of ethics. Doesn't cross that boundary. Not many politicians would do that... and I can't help but think there has to be some substance to someone who was able to survive that many years in a POW camp intact...
What a shame that politics thrives on the charismatic rather than the purely qualified. I'm Democrat, but I would have given Colin Powell a go of it... another individual I perceive with integrity... Allen Greenspan even (and I think there is a good possibility he is Aspie) but then again that is probably why they wouldn't run for office.
.... but then again maybe I've got it backwards all around ... I mean look at Bill Clinton and how well the country faired under his leadership... maybe the best qualification for President is pure charisma and no integrity at all.
hmmmm. Think I'm getting synical in my old age???
Naw. Then I'd be saying Shendra for President!
Mom
Can you tell I like the lightness of this thread. I agree with Tiger, lets keep it all here.
^
...or pay taxes. All those charitable contributions are nontaxable, right?
Mom
And I thought we were all doing so well keeping to the lighter side. sigh.
Mom
Why do you fight over theory when you have the opportunity to practice what it is you say you believe? To disagree with oppression while strong arming another, I do not respect. it is the respect derived from seeing the individual over the label that will ultimately defeat discriminations of all kinds. I do not have your education or voice. Living acceptance is the best example.
I am confirmed Catholic. It does not mean I place man's judgment above God's. gd does not make mistakes. To create a Gay man is to do so with purpose just as to create a disabled is with purpose. It is only the fact they are in minority that leads to the opportunity for oppression. I do not have to understand the purpose to know one exists. This is natural to my faith. Aetheists need figure it out via another reasoning. I will leave them to answer for them.
Hrick
How fast you reply. I understand. But people create the systems. People can change them. to see my friend as gay makes it impossible to ignore another being reviled for it. Just that act would make others safe if shared. Do you have a better way?
Hrick
i will have mom read it to me. thank you. i want to learn more to change it, not argue about it.
hrick
I worked for a number of years in the area of social services and to be frank what I found was a mix. Some families receiving welfare were more than deserving, the victims of unfortunate circumstances or just trying to survive on what was simply a poor wage and limited earned income. Others, most especially those who were third and fourth generation welfare, had all but made a science of using and beating the system, even going so far as to calculate when they needed to become reimpregranted so as not to be dropped from the system. I actually agree with Yetti in thinking, as currently designed, the system actually does hinder more than it helps because its set up is not conducive to navigation by the neuvo poor, nor is it set up with incentives or added benefits available for those who do want to help themselves eventually work their way off the roles. Even at its best the system is substantially flawed and those who seek to reform it have never experienced it to recognize what and where modifications would be truly productive.
Mom
Max asks:
...and your job was to judge the people you were there to help?
Actually yes, in certain circumstances. It would all depend on who the client was at the time. Parent, child or eventually system itself. If you have an actual interest in the specifics of what my work was I'd be happy to share it with you PM,
Max states:
"It's always interesting to me that out of the trillions of abused dollars the government wastes on corporate hand-outs and illegal wars, there's a certain kind of moral vigilante who is most concerned that some poor person is going to sneak an extra cookie out of the jar."
In response:
I'm sure these folks exist. ... but in this instance, to be frank, my concern was the welfare of the child/children who were serving as source of those government dollars and I expect my position on things often cost the government more than a "few cookies". To the extent I did my job correctly it hopefully helped a lot of children and some families in end.
Max quote:
"Republican Values at their finest".
Your portrayal may or may not be a reflection of Republican values at their finest, but as to me personally... well thank you for the chuckle.
Mom
Not sure I follow, Ian. Can you elaborate?
But what about when they directly contradict each other? You can't have it both ways.
Here's an interesting post I came across on another site.
Too often theists will try to place atheism and theism on the same plane by arguing a particular equivalency: theists cannot prove that god does exist and atheists cannot prove that god does not exist. Frequently this comes after the theist's attempts at proof have failed and a new tactic is required.
Just frequently, this is used as a basis for arguing that there is no objective means for determining which is preferable because neither has a logical or empirical advantage over the other. Thus, the only reason for going with one or the other is something like faith and then, presumably, the theist will argue that their faith is somehow better than the atheist's faith.
Unfortunately, the above claim is more often false than true. It relies upon the erroneous assumption that all propositions are created equal and, because some cannot be conclusively disproven, then therefore none can be conclusively disproven. So, it is argued, the proposition "God exists" cannot be disproven.
But not all propositions are created equal. It is indeed true that some cannot really be disproven - for example, the claim "a black swan exists" cannot be disproven. To do so would require examining every spot in the universe to make sure that such a swan did not exist, and that simply isn't possible.
Other propositions, however, can be disproven - and quite conclusively. There are two ways to do this. The first is to see if the proposition leads to a logical contradiction; if this is so, then the proposition must be false. Examples of this would be "a married bachelor exists" or "a square circle exists." Both of these proposition entail logical contradictions - pointing this out is essentially the same as disproving them.
Similarly, if someone claims the existence of a god, the existence of which entails logical contradictions, then that god can be disproven in the exact same way. Many atheological arguments are based upon exactly that - for example they argue that an omnipotent and omniscient god cannot exist because those qualities lead to logical contradictions.
Another means of disproving propositions is a bit more complicated - it involves careful observation and testing. Consider the following two propositions:
1. Our solar system has a tenth planet.
2. Our solar system has a tenth planet with a mass of X and an orbit of Y.
Both proposition can be proven, but there is a difference when it comes to disproving them. The first could be disproven in theory if someone were to examine all of the space between the sun and the outer limits of our solar system and they found no new planets - but such a process is beyond our technology. So, for all practical purposes, it is currently not disprovable.
The second proposition, however, is disprovable with current technology. Knowing the important and specific information of mass and orbit, we can devise specific tests to look and see if such an object exists. If the tests repeatedly fail, then we can reasonably conclude that the object does not exist and that the proposition has been disproven. Note that this would not mean that no tenth planet exists. Instead, it simply means that this particular tenth planet, with this mass and this orbit, does not exist.
Similarly, when a god is defined adequately, it can be possible to construct empirical or logical tests to see if it can exist. We can look, for example, at the expected effects which such a god might have on nature or humanity. If we fail to find those effects, then that god with that set of characteristics does not exist. Some other god with some other set of characteristics may exist, but this one has been disproven.
An example of this would be the common Argument from Evil - an atheological argument which proposes to prove that an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent god cannot exist at the same time as a world like ours which has so much evil in it. If successful, such an argument would not disprove the existence of some other god; it would instead merely disprove the existence of any gods with a particular set of characteristics.
Thus, it is possible to prove that a god does not exist - but obviously this depends upon getting an adequate description of just what this god is and what characteristics it has. We need that in order to determine either if there is a logical contradiction or if any testable implications hold true. What happens when we don't get an adequate description?
Well, obviously atheists cannot prove that it does not exist and theists cannot prove that it does exist. However, in such a case believers have abandoned too much in the attempt to find a god which is immune to disproof. Without a substantive explanation of just what this god is, how can there be a substantive claim that this god is? In order to reasonably claim that this god matters, the believer will have to provide substantive information regarding its nature and characteristics; otherwise, there is no particular reason for anyone else to care.
It should also be noted that arguing about how atheists "cannot prove that God does not exist" often relies upon a misunderstanding about atheism itself. It seems to be generally predicated upon the assumption that the atheist claims "God does not exist" and so should be expected to prove that. It should be pointed out to the theist in such cases that atheists merely fail to accept that their claim that "God exists" and, hence, the initial burden of proof lies with the believer.
If the believer is unable to provide good reason to accept the existence of this god, it is unreasonable to expect the atheist to try and construct a proof that it does not exist - or even care very much about the claim in the first place. Such an expectation is only reasonable when the atheist in question has specifically claimed that this or that god does not or cannot exist.
Source: http://boards.historychannel.com/thread....4352105000