For Those Who Do Believe In God...

[tigerbob]

Coming from a pompous windbag such as yourself, I'll take that as a compliment.

Nothing pompous on this end--pompous is the one who insists he's been complimented because he believes he's been complimented; it's all about him.

Ah, I see... well, if this comment was about someone else and not I, then please forgive my arrogance.

So proud of your certainties whose validity is based solely on your belief they are valid. Arrogant dumbfucks, both of you. __________________

P.S. You're also sexist...

Dude, never apologize to Loki, even in jest. He'll think you mean it. (It's all about him.)

 

[AVG-JOE]

Oh and political opinion is provable?

If you needed a good reason for a political position, liberalism wouldnt exist.

Contrary to your opinion, religious people have every right to have their say in politics. This society belongs to religious people as well as non-religious people. You have no problem forcing your views on others, but the second someone speaks out against you, you pretend you're a victim.

This a Republic. Your voice isnt the only one that's going to be heard. And if you think you can force your view points on people, their will be bloodshed. And it will have nothing to do wih religion. it will have everything to do with the fact that your a totalitarian.

Dude, neither is provable, both are however, measurable. Political opinion, in and of itself is as varied as religious opinion. That is why we have elections... to measure it.

In November, 52.9% of Americans said they would prefer to see Obama at the helm of the nation for the next 4 years and the other 47.1% are simply stuck with the decision, if we are to be a nation of laws and not mobs. Forced, if you will, to live in a 'liberal' nation until at least the next election.

What a sad country we would would be if 52% of of the population could force the rest of us to live a Catholic lifestyle...

That is the difference between religious opinion and political opinion.

That is why some pretty smart dudes proposed the idea that the state should never establish or adopt, as official policy, any lifestyle choice in particular, but be tolerant of all lifestyle choices. At least in theory...

-Joe

How is liberalism any less of a religion than Catholicism? There are no facts in liberalism anymore than you think that there are facts in Catholicism. But since you deem that there aren't any religious beliefs associated with liberalism then it's a huge green light to force your views on the other 48%? Why don't we follow the constitution, which certainly never mentioned redistribution of wealth and controlling the population via environmentalist causes. I don't see your dogma as being any different than religious dogma.

The religious comparison of liberalism to Catholicism was never part of my point...

The point of my post is that religion is a choice in how to live your life; perhaps, some would argue, also is liberalism - I won't argue that point either.

My thesis point was the value of recognizing the line between 'politics' (the setting of the rules and vision everyone MUST live by for a time) and 'religion' (the life-style we can choose to live by within the greater organization, no matter what politics come into fashion).

'Liberalism', like 'Conservatism' are not 'religions' in my book because their influence is, by mutual agreement of the entire group, forced on the entire group and their flavor is apt to change in the quest for votes, depending on public opinion. That is what makes them 'politics' instead.

Religion (lifestyle choices) doesn't need the approval of a geographic majority to apply policy to those who continue to claim it and support it. Religion (lifestyle choices) is willing to cater to smaller groups within the whole, and the fact that there are diametrically opposed choices in lifestyle is healthy for the larger organization, provided all the sub-groups can agree to some common rules (politics).

This, of course, is mostly theory. History has proven the shortsightedness of most lifestyle choices in their quest to be proven right if by no other means than to insist that every other lifestyle choice is wrong. Insist by violence if necessary.

As an example:

If one sub-group believes sex between consenting adults of the opposite sex is good and all other sex is bad, and another sub-group believes all sex between consenting adults is good, and yet another sub-group believes that the only good sex is sex between 2 and only 2 consenting adults of the opposite sex who have a state approved contract committing their lives together until divorce, then the common ground rule should be based on legal sex being between consenting adults, allowing all of the sub-groups to make their own policies for membership.

-Joe

 

[Newby]

Nothing pompous on this end--pompous is the one who insists he's been complimented because he believes he's been complimented; it's all about him.

Ah, I see... well, if this comment was about someone else and not I, then please forgive my arrogance.

So proud of your certainties whose validity is based solely on your belief they are valid. Arrogant dumbfucks, both of you. __________________

P.S. You're also sexist...

Dude, never apologize to Loki, even in jest. He'll think you mean it. (It's all about him.)

That's dudette... and it was in complete sarcasm that I apologized, but if that makes him happy, then I won't regret it either.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Psalm 5:5 The arrogant cannot stand in your presence;
you hate all who do wrong. 6 You destroy those who tell lies;
bloodthirsty and deceitful men the LORD abhors.

I still say that this concept, combined with our history, while it may not be proof that the God of The Bible is a fantasy of man, it is evidence that there are inconsistencies in His Word versus His actions.

-Joe

Not sure where you got that, but I did not post it. I've never posted any quotes from the Bible on here.

You are correct... Sorry about that! It came from this post by LiveUninhibited.

..

My post has been corrected.

-Joe

 

[Newby]

Dude, neither is provable, both are however, measurable. Political opinion, in and of itself is as varied as religious opinion. That is why we have elections... to measure it.

In November, 52.9% of Americans said they would prefer to see Obama at the helm of the nation for the next 4 years and the other 47.1% are simply stuck with the decision, if we are to be a nation of laws and not mobs. Forced, if you will, to live in a 'liberal' nation until at least the next election.

What a sad country we would would be if 52% of of the population could force the rest of us to live a Catholic lifestyle...

That is the difference between religious opinion and political opinion.

That is why some pretty smart dudes proposed the idea that the state should never establish or adopt, as official policy, any lifestyle choice in particular, but be tolerant of all lifestyle choices. At least in theory...

-Joe

How is liberalism any less of a religion than Catholicism? There are no facts in liberalism anymore than you think that there are facts in Catholicism. But since you deem that there aren't any religious beliefs associated with liberalism then it's a huge green light to force your views on the other 48%? Why don't we follow the constitution, which certainly never mentioned redistribution of wealth and controlling the population via environmentalist causes. I don't see your dogma as being any different than religious dogma.

The religious comparison of liberalism to Catholicism was never part of my point...

The point of my post is that religion is a choice in how to live your life; perhaps, some would argue, also is liberalism - I won't argue that point either.

My thesis point was the value of recognizing the line between 'politics' (the setting of the rules and vision everyone MUST live by for a time) and 'religion' (the life-style we can choose to live by within the greater organization, no matter what politics come into fashion).

'Liberalism', like 'Conservatism' are not 'religions' in my book because their influence is, by mutual agreement of the entire group, forced on the entire group and their flavor is apt to change in the quest for votes, depending on public opinion. That is what makes them 'politics' instead.

Religion (lifestyle choices) doesn't need the approval of a geographic majority to apply policy to those who continue to claim it and support it. Religion (lifestyle choices) is willing to cater to smaller groups within the whole, and the fact that there are diametrically opposed choices in lifestyle is healthy for the larger organization, provided all the sub-groups can agree to some common rules (politics).

This, of course, is mostly theory. History has proven the shortsightedness of most lifestyle choices in their quest to be proven right if by no other means than to insist that every other lifestyle choice is wrong. Insist by violence if necessary.

As an example:

If one sub-group believes sex between consenting adults of the opposite sex is good and all other sex is bad, and another sub-group believes all sex between consenting adults is good, and yet another sub-group believes that the only good sex is sex between 2 and only 2 consenting adults of the opposite sex who have a state approved contract committing their lives together until divorce, then the common ground rule should be based on legal sex being between consenting adults, allowing all of the sub-groups to make their own policies for membership.

-Joe

I can't see the separation as clearly as you do when it comes to 'lifestyle choices' and politics, to my mind they are one and the same. Mandating where I can get my health benefits from just so that we can be sure that a minority of lower income in the country are covered, is all about lifestyle. And when they are determining what doctor you can see, what will be paid for based on your age, your sex, among other things, etc... they are making lifestyle choices for you. When they are determining what your appropriate salary should be (as is currently being suggested by the Treasury Secretary) they are making lifestyle choices. When they are mandating what types of cars can be produced in this country, they are making lifestyle choices for you. When they can determine what temperature you can set your thermostat at (this is coming) they are making lifestyle choices for you. When they take money out of your pay in order to 'save' it for you when you for when you retire instead of letting you invest it yourself (social security) they are making life style choices for you. Progressivism is getting their fingers into everyone's lives and making determinations for us that they believe they can make better than we can based upon their beliefs and opinions. And because those opinions and beliefs have nothing to do with 'religion', then it's a-okay to most of you. Then their opinions of how everyone should conduct their lives is acceptable. I just don't get it.

 

[Newby]

I still say that this concept, combined with our history, while it may not be proof that the God of The Bible is a fantasy of man, it is evidence that there are inconsistencies in His Word versus His actions.

-Joe

Not sure where you got that, but I did not post it. I've never posted any quotes from the Bible on here.

You are correct... Sorry about that! It came from this post by LiveUninhibited.

..

My post has been corrected.

-Joe

No problem. I was just surprised when I saw it.

 

[tigerbob]

Ah, I see... well, if this comment was about someone else and not I, then please forgive my arrogance.

So proud of your certainties whose validity is based solely on your belief they are valid. Arrogant dumbfucks, both of you. __________________

P.S. You're also sexist...

Dude, never apologize to Loki, even in jest. He'll think you mean it. (It's all about him.)

That's dudette... and it was in complete sarcasm that I apologized, but if that makes him happy, then I won't regret it either.

My apologies, dudette. The sarcasm I got. And if your selfless response improves his attitude a bit it will have been worth it (but I don't suggest holding your breath).

Dudette. Great word.

 

[Againsheila]

Just came from volunteering at a church to give out lunches to the homeless. They were talking about a well attended funeral last weekend at the church for a young girl who died in a head on collision, she was going the wrong way on the freeway having taken the off ramp to get on instead of the on ramp.

Most of these people attending this funeral were young. Most of them had never been to a church or a funeral before. They were loud, they were rude, a funeral that should have taken and hour to an hour and a 1/2 (not including the reception afterward) took 2 and 1/2 hours.

I'm so sorry that you think a prayer to Jesus in some way "harms" you child, but I think not teaching him how to act appropriately in church or at a funeral harms him AND society.

Oh, and BTW, you will notice that everyone in favor of abortion has ALREADY BEEN BORN!!!! Kind of selfish, don't ya think?

Who said a prayer to Jesus harms my child? My original quote said forcing kids to pray would harm them (especially if they are non believers).

No I don't think it is selfish with regard to them already being born. Their parents made a choice. I don't have a problem with foetus's being aborted in the first trimester.

As for the funeral, if what you say is correct, yes those kids were rude. I went to several funerals in my late teens and early 20s of contemporaries who died young - most in car crashes or suicides. Most of the kids at the funerals were not religious and very respectful. Not too sure what your point is? Religious folk are more respectful at funerals than athiests? Poppycock. That aside, your anecdote is once removed from the original source and people like to exaggerate. Probably a couple of kids were rude and by the time it got to you the whole lot more...

Nope, spoke to the Pastor herself. There was the urn in front of the Church and she said people could come up and pay their respects and the majority of the very young audience would stop in front of the urn and chat, not letting anyone else up to pay their respects. She had to keep shooing them off. Finally she started the Lord's prayer, which finally made them go sit down. They did not realize that the funeral wasn't over, or that it was really impolite to carry on a conversation while standing in the way of people who wish to view the remains, in this case, the remains being in an urn.

Kids today are more rude than when I was a child. Do I think it's related to the number of kids attending churches? Yes. I also think it's related to the number of kids being raised in broken homes today vs when I was a kid. I think it's really sad that when I was a kid, a child from a broken home was the exception in the class and today it's the other way around.

Do I think all Christians are more polite than non-Christians? Nope, I've met too many rude Christians, even in church. I just figure they need Church more than some others.

 

[amrchaos]

Just came from volunteering at a church to give out lunches to the homeless. They were talking about a well attended funeral last weekend at the church for a young girl who died in a head on collision, she was going the wrong way on the freeway having taken the off ramp to get on instead of the on ramp.

Most of these people attending this funeral were young. Most of them had never been to a church or a funeral before. They were loud, they were rude, a funeral that should have taken and hour to an hour and a 1/2 (not including the reception afterward) took 2 and 1/2 hours.

I'm so sorry that you think a prayer to Jesus in some way "harms" you child, but I think not teaching him how to act appropriately in church or at a funeral harms him AND society.

Oh, and BTW, you will notice that everyone in favor of abortion has ALREADY BEEN BORN!!!! Kind of selfish, don't ya think?

Who said a prayer to Jesus harms my child? My original quote said forcing kids to pray would harm them (especially if they are non believers).

No I don't think it is selfish with regard to them already being born. Their parents made a choice. I don't have a problem with foetus's being aborted in the first trimester.

As for the funeral, if what you say is correct, yes those kids were rude. I went to several funerals in my late teens and early 20s of contemporaries who died young - most in car crashes or suicides. Most of the kids at the funerals were not religious and very respectful. Not too sure what your point is? Religious folk are more respectful at funerals than athiests? Poppycock. That aside, your anecdote is once removed from the original source and people like to exaggerate. Probably a couple of kids were rude and by the time it got to you the whole lot more...

Nope, spoke to the Pastor herself. There was the urn in front of the Church and she said people could come up and pay their respects and the majority of the very young audience would stop in front of the urn and chat, not letting anyone else up to pay their respects. She had to keep shooing them off. Finally she started the Lord's prayer, which finally made them go sit down. They did not realize that the funeral wasn't over, or that it was really impolite to carry on a conversation while standing in the way of people who wish to view the remains, in this case, the remains being in an urn.

Kids today are more rude than when I was a child. Do I think it's related to the number of kids attending churches? Yes. I also think it's related to the number of kids being raised in broken homes today vs when I was a kid. I think it's really sad that when I was a kid, a child from a broken home was the exception in the class and today it's the other way around.

Do I think all Christians are more polite than non-Christians? Nope, I've met too many rude Christians, even in church. I just figure they need Church more than some others.

Hey--could it be possible that the Dead was not aware that they were dead and was busy trying to hear gossip at the funeral?

The problem I have with most "well mannered" funerals is that it may not contain the dead persons personality. If the person that died was young and their friends/ family members tend to behave in an odd way(talk around the casket--cry in strange places--make loud and inaudible noises) It could be that the dead is trying to interact with them.

Hey, Believers--does the spirit take the first light beam to heaven or hell, or can it hang around trying to continue a lost life??

Now that is a question for this board!!

 

[Newby]

Dude, never apologize to Loki, even in jest. He'll think you mean it. (It's all about him.)

That's dudette... and it was in complete sarcasm that I apologized, but if that makes him happy, then I won't regret it either.

My apologies, dudette. The sarcasm I got. And if your selfless response improves his attitude a bit it will have been worth it (but I don't suggest holding your breath).

Dudette. Great word.

Definitely not holding my breath.

 

[Againsheila]

Who said a prayer to Jesus harms my child? My original quote said forcing kids to pray would harm them (especially if they are non believers).

No I don't think it is selfish with regard to them already being born. Their parents made a choice. I don't have a problem with foetus's being aborted in the first trimester.

As for the funeral, if what you say is correct, yes those kids were rude. I went to several funerals in my late teens and early 20s of contemporaries who died young - most in car crashes or suicides. Most of the kids at the funerals were not religious and very respectful. Not too sure what your point is? Religious folk are more respectful at funerals than athiests? Poppycock. That aside, your anecdote is once removed from the original source and people like to exaggerate. Probably a couple of kids were rude and by the time it got to you the whole lot more...

Nope, spoke to the Pastor herself. There was the urn in front of the Church and she said people could come up and pay their respects and the majority of the very young audience would stop in front of the urn and chat, not letting anyone else up to pay their respects. She had to keep shooing them off. Finally she started the Lord's prayer, which finally made them go sit down. They did not realize that the funeral wasn't over, or that it was really impolite to carry on a conversation while standing in the way of people who wish to view the remains, in this case, the remains being in an urn.

Kids today are more rude than when I was a child. Do I think it's related to the number of kids attending churches? Yes. I also think it's related to the number of kids being raised in broken homes today vs when I was a kid. I think it's really sad that when I was a kid, a child from a broken home was the exception in the class and today it's the other way around.

Do I think all Christians are more polite than non-Christians? Nope, I've met too many rude Christians, even in church. I just figure they need Church more than some others.

Hey--could it be possible that the Dead was not aware that they were dead and was busy trying to hear gossip at the funeral?

The problem I have with most "well mannered" funerals is that it may not contain the dead persons personality. If the person that died was young and their friends/ family members tend to behave in an odd way(talk around the casket--cry in strange places--make loud and inaudible noises) It could be that the dead is trying to interact with them.

Hey, Believers--does the spirit take the first light beam to heaven or hell, or can it hang around trying to continue a lost life??

Now that is a question for this board!!

All I know is standing in front of the urn and chatting it up with your friends while others are waiting their turn is rude. The time for chatting with your friends is at the reception held across the hall AFTER the funeral. Also, if you need more alone time with the urn, you wait until everyone has a turn and then AFTER the funeral, you approach the urn and get your time.

 

[LOki]

Coming from a pompous windbag such as yourself, I'll take that as a compliment.

Nothing pompous on this end--pompous is the one who insists he's been complimented because he believes he's been complimented; it's all about him.

Ah, I see... well, if this comment was about someone else and not I, then please forgive my arrogance.

So proud of your certainties whose validity is based solely on your belief they are valid. Arrogant dumbfucks, both of you. __________________

P.S. You're also sexist...

Oh really? How so?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Progressivism is getting their fingers into everyone's lives and making determinations for us that they believe they can make better than we can based upon their beliefs and opinions. And because those opinions and beliefs have nothing to do with 'religion', then it's a-okay to most of you. Then their opinions of how everyone should conduct their lives is acceptable. I just don't get it.

There is a difference between opinions and beliefs and obervable reality, even if the difference is hard to determine. Now whether Progressivism is best, I don't know. But you certainly don't like it and it would only be hypocritical if you wanted similar legislation, right? So if you don't like that the fed takes money out of your paycheck and puts it in social security, think of how bad homosexuals feel that heterosexuals can marry and they can't!

I can't see the separation as clearly as you do when it comes to 'lifestyle choices' and politics, to my mind they are one and the same.

What if your children were made to bow to Mecca at public schools? Would you be okay with that? Public schools should show no preference for one religion or another. That's politics. It has to do with public funding. Now if the clergy at your church tells you that you shouldn't bow to Mecca because you're a Christian, that's lifestyle.

Mandating where I can get my health benefits from just so that we can be sure that a minority of lower income in the country are covered, is all about lifestyle.

Once again they are using public money so this is politics. You have to pay taxes. I don't think we should pay income tax (tell that to the IRS!), but we do have to pay taxes so that we can fund the government we are supposed to control. If our representatives think that its best for society to ensure everyone has healthcare with the money we all give the government, its politics. If you don't want to go where the government tells you, that's lifestyle.

And when they are determining what doctor you can see, what will be paid for based on your age, your sex, among other things, etc... they are making lifestyle choices for you.

This isn't, hasn't, and won't happen. This is the fear tactics that the private medical companies propagandize so that they won't lose money. Under Obama's plan you get to choose your doctor and everyone will get the same coverage depending on income and pre-existing coverage. Is it the best way to do it? I don't know. However, I think every US citizen has a right to healthcare, and Obama's plan, according to some, should alleviate the burden of bankruptcies on the economy. I don't know if I buy it, but its better than people dying in emergency rooms for lack of care.

When they are determining what your appropriate salary should be (as is currently being suggested by the Treasury Secretary) they are making lifestyle choices.

I really doubt this will happen. Sounds like right-wing scare tactics propaganda to me.

When they are mandating what types of cars can be produced in this country, they are making lifestyle choices for you.

The reason why liberals want to mandate what types of vehicle can be manufactured is #1) because capitalism didn't work - the car companies are going broke and #2) because scientific research, albeit controversial, suggests that global warming is accelerating. There is a correlation between the burning of carbon based fuels and accelerated global warming. So, in order to protect all living things and maintain a quality of life, many liberals want to make it so that you have to drive either a fuel efficient vehicle or one that doesn't use fossil fuels. This isn't arbitrary. Unlike Prop. 8. There is scientific research here. There is also logic. Let's say those scientists are wrong. Global warming isn't happening. Do we know for sure one way or another? No. But if we bet on that global warming isn't happening and behave the way we have and 20 years from now we find out we're wrong...That's a hell of a gamble to make. I'd rather play it safe and live in a less polluted world even if global warming isn't happening.

When they can determine what temperature you can set your thermostat at (this is coming) they are making lifestyle choices for you.

Sounds like more right-wing propaganda. How would this be enforced?

When they take money out of your pay in order to 'save' it for you when you for when you retire instead of letting you invest it yourself (social security) they are making life style choices for you.

The majority of Americans want social security. However, you can apply to be exempt from social security. I don't remember the details, but you can probably find some information about this. There's your lifestyle choice.

The difference is that politics shouldn't be based on arbitrary rules that come from an ancient book. You can stereotype liberals if you want, but just remember, most liberals only want what they believe is best. Conservatives do as well. The devil is in the details and both sides are equally guilty in that regard.

 

[AVG-JOE]

How is liberalism any less of a religion than Catholicism? There are no facts in liberalism anymore than you think that there are facts in Catholicism. But since you deem that there aren't any religious beliefs associated with liberalism then it's a huge green light to force your views on the other 48%? Why don't we follow the constitution, which certainly never mentioned redistribution of wealth and controlling the population via environmentalist causes. I don't see your dogma as being any different than religious dogma.

The religious comparison of liberalism to Catholicism was never part of my point...

The point of my post is that religion is a choice in how to live your life; perhaps, some would argue, also is liberalism - I won't argue that point either.

My thesis point was the value of recognizing the line between 'politics' (the setting of the rules and vision everyone MUST live by for a time) and 'religion' (the life-style we can choose to live by within the greater organization, no matter what politics come into fashion).

'Liberalism', like 'Conservatism' are not 'religions' in my book because their influence is, by mutual agreement of the entire group, forced on the entire group and their flavor is apt to change in the quest for votes, depending on public opinion. That is what makes them 'politics' instead.

Religion (lifestyle choices) doesn't need the approval of a geographic majority to apply policy to those who continue to claim it and support it. Religion (lifestyle choices) is willing to cater to smaller groups within the whole, and the fact that there are diametrically opposed choices in lifestyle is healthy for the larger organization, provided all the sub-groups can agree to some common rules (politics).

This, of course, is mostly theory. History has proven the shortsightedness of most lifestyle choices in their quest to be proven right if by no other means than to insist that every other lifestyle choice is wrong. Insist by violence if necessary.

As an example:

If one sub-group believes sex between consenting adults of the opposite sex is good and all other sex is bad, and another sub-group believes all sex between consenting adults is good, and yet another sub-group believes that the only good sex is sex between 2 and only 2 consenting adults of the opposite sex who have a state approved contract committing their lives together until divorce, then the common ground rule should be based on legal sex being between consenting adults, allowing all of the sub-groups to make their own policies for membership.

-Joe

I can't see the separation as clearly as you do when it comes to 'lifestyle choices' and politics, to my mind they are one and the same. Mandating where I can get my health benefits from just so that we can be sure that a minority of lower income in the country are covered, is all about lifestyle. And when they are determining what doctor you can see, what will be paid for based on your age, your sex, among other things, etc... they are making lifestyle choices for you. When they are determining what your appropriate salary should be (as is currently being suggested by the Treasury Secretary) they are making lifestyle choices. When they are mandating what types of cars can be produced in this country, they are making lifestyle choices for you. When they can determine what temperature you can set your thermostat at (this is coming) they are making lifestyle choices for you. When they take money out of your pay in order to 'save' it for you when you for when you retire instead of letting you invest it yourself (social security) they are making life style choices for you. Progressivism is getting their fingers into everyone's lives and making determinations for us that they believe they can make better than we can based upon their beliefs and opinions. And because those opinions and beliefs have nothing to do with 'religion', then it's a-okay to most of you. Then their opinions of how everyone should conduct their lives is acceptable. I just don't get it.

As I said, Newby... it is politics versus religion in theory. The spilling over of lifestyle choices into politics is what makes politics so passionately messy in our young democracy.

If everybody could take an honest look at their politics and remove all aspects of their lifestyle choices from the mix, focusing instead on establishing a set of rules based on the common do's and don'ts we can agree on, the point of this thread would be moot.

Unfortunately, it is virtually impossible to establish rules for the group without the various sub-groups asking "what's in it for me?" and/or finding offense in allowing behavior they find 'sinful', mostly for correctly fearing that their control over members will be hampered if people are truly free to choose. This problem is not new.

-Joe

 

[Kalam]

Actual infinites do not exist except in theory.

Potential infinities are possible--but that is beside the point--as is the point I made that the assertion in the KCA that states that because actual infinites do not exist in nature, nature cannot be an actual infinity, is like asserting that because the atoms in a cube of gold are colorless, the cube of gold is colorless--it's subject to the error of composition.

The universe cannot be an actual infinity because a portion of an actual infinity is equal to infinity. If an infinite amount of time had passed before this moment in time, this moment in time would never have been reached. One part of an actual infinity is indistinguishable from another. If time was actually infinite, there would be no discernible sequences of events. The argument that the universe cannot be actually infinite simply because things in nature cannot be actually infinite was made in support of the KCA, not by the KCA itself.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe must have a cause.

So, asserting that whole of the universe had a beginning because it's pieces had beginnings really is subject to compositional error, which is STILL secondary to the contentious presumption that there is some existence [where a personal creator exists] outside of the universe within which the universe should begin. Contentious in the presumtion that there is existence outside of the universe, and then question begging in that the existence outside of the universe is the personal creator who created the universe.

The universe had a beginning. The universe did not cause itself, therefore, the universe was caused to be by something that exists outside of the universe.

The universe must have had a beginning according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Thus, so does your personal creator.

The Laws of Thermodynamics apply to isolated systems, not personal creators. A personal creator wouldn't conceivably have mass and particles, or anything subject to increasing entropy and the like.

The way you're getting around this is by using a definition of universe that presumes a personal creator (outside of the universe, an assertion which is necessarily in dispute)--putting "personal creator" in the definition of "universe" that is used in your first premise, that you then use to support your conclusion for the existence of a "personal creator", is question begging.

Your accusation of question begging makes no sense. The argument, its two premises and its conclusion, are posted above. Demonstrate how "everything that begins to exist has a cause" is question begging. Demonstrate how "the universe began to exist" is question begging. Where, before the conclusion, is a prime mover mentioned?

Well, it seems that it is necessarily so. Just watch what you do:What prime mover? The one you presume exists in the definition of "the universe" that you use in your first premise? When you say "the universe" i9n your premise, do you really mean to say "all things in existence" or are you actually saying "everything except the personal creator whose existence I'm trying to prove"?

The universe is the entire physical universe; all of the matter that, according to the Big Bang theory, expanded from a singularity or a similarly compact state to form everything that you can detect with one or more of your five senses.

 

[LOki]

Actual infinites do not exist except in theory.

Potential infinities are possible--but that is beside the point--as is the point I made that the assertion in the KCA that states that because actual infinites do not exist in nature, nature cannot be an actual infinity, is like asserting that because the atoms in a cube of gold are colorless, the cube of gold is colorless--it's subject to the error of composition.

The universe cannot be an actual infinity because a portion of an actual infinity is equal to infinity. If an infinite amount of time had passed before this moment in time, this moment in time would never have been reached. One part of an actual infinity is indistinguishable from another. If time was actually infinite, there would be no discernible sequences of events. The argument that the universe cannot be actually infinite simply because things in nature cannot be actually infinite was made in support of the KCA, not by the KCA itself.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe must have a cause.

Petitio principii.

EDIT: BTW, "a portion of an actual infinity is equal to infinity" is an example of a compositional error, as is "One part of an actual infinity is indistinguishable from another". For instance, there are infinite real numbers; pi, a part of the the actual infinity of real numbers, is distinguishable from the infinity it is part of, and each part of the infinity that constitutes the infinity of real numbers.

"If an infinite amount of time had passed before this moment in time, this moment in time would never have been reached." See Zeno's paradox; you're just spinning up a similar divisional fallacy.​

The universe had a beginning. The universe did not cause itself, therefore, the universe was caused to be by something that exists outside of the universe.

So, asserting that whole of the universe had a beginning because it's pieces had beginnings really is subject to compositional error, which is STILL secondary to the contentious presumption that there is some existence [where a personal creator exists] outside of the universe within which the universe should begin. Contentious in the presumtion that there is existence outside of the universe, and then question begging in that the existence outside of the universe is the personal creator who created the universe.

The Laws of Thermodynamics apply to isolated systems, not personal creators.

What personal creator?

A personal creator wouldn't conceivably have mass and particles, or anything subject to increasing entropy and the like.

I conceive this.

The way you're getting around this is by using a definition of universe that presumes a personal creator (outside of the universe, an assertion which is necessarily in dispute)--putting "personal creator" in the definition of "universe" that is used in your first premise, that you then use to support your conclusion for the existence of a "personal creator", is question begging.

Your accusation of question begging makes no sense. The argument, its two premises and its conclusion, are posted above. Demonstrate how "everything that begins to exist has a cause" is question begging. Demonstrate how "the universe began to exist" is question begging. Where, before the conclusion, is a prime mover mentioned?

I explained this. You're using a definition of universe that presumes the existence of a "prime mover" outside of the universe (any existence outside of the universe is an assertion which is necessarily in dispute)--putting "prime mover" in the definition of "universe" that is used in your second (ok, sue me) premise, that you then use to support your conclusion for the existence of a "personal creator"--it is question begging.

Well, it seems that it is necessarily so. Just watch what you do:What prime mover? The one you presume exists in the definition of "the universe" that you use in your first premise? When you say "the universe" i9n your premise, do you really mean to say "all things in existence" or are you actually saying "everything except the personal creator whose existence I'm trying to prove"?

The universe is the entire physical universe; all of the matter that, according to the Big Bang theory, expanded from a singularity or a similarly compact state to form everything that you can detect with one or more of your five senses.

Then you are in fact asserting in your premise that "the universe" is everything except the personal creator (or prime mover, Biggie Fries and a Coke, . . . whatever) whose existence you're trying to prove. Question begging game over.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

If I decide to believe in Jesus Christ, or Mohammed, or whomever, just so I don't go to Hell and go to Heaven (or Paradise or wherever) when I die, then I don't really believe do I?

Whuh? So you choose not to suffer the consequences of living beyond the light of the Father... meaning you choose to avoid the death that comes when you choose not to believe... and you claim that this is evidence that you actually do not believe?

Try this... next time you're taking a swim... choose to believe that you can live without returning to the other side of the fluid environment and draw another breath. I mean if you really believe that you can live under water... you will; right?

So then why would I choose to believe?

You choose to believe because you know that what you believe is the truth.

How do I choose to believe?

You make an overt decision to accept what you know and to act upon that understanding.

What makes your religion so special that you know its the right one out of all the others out there?

I don't see that there is a huge distinction... each religion simply recognizes the instinctive understanding that we are part of something larger. And describes that in terms our brain is designed to understand... what that something is, is beyond our means to understand and to even understand it would be pointless; how could it possibly matter? We don't possess the means to challenge that something; we've no means to reject it's authority and establish our own in it's stead... That something is not a government which holds us in bondage... IT IS US... simply us on a level beyond our means to comprehend.


I know my religion is THE Religion... it is the truth... that is what makes it special.

That you or someone else rejects that truth does not change it...

If you came to my front door and said: Where do you live? I would tell you that 'this is my home'... You would say: Prove it.

And while I might think you unstable, I may decide to walk to the counter and pick up the light bill and show you my license and say: See Friend, this is me and as you can see the utility company has sent me a post, knowing that I am the rightfull owner of this property.

You may look at that and declare that such is not evidence that this is where I live... you may demand that this is merely evidence of where I get my mail and so on...

You see my evidence and you reject it... and that is a difficult thing to overcome; as it reuires greater and greater detail, until we're standing at the courthouse and you see the record that reflects my ownership of that property... and you reject THAT... claiming that this is merely a record of deed, that simply assigns me a termporal entitlement... and within the analogy, this would be a crisis in faith, if your ascension to my belief were critical to the validity of my belief.

But your ascension is not critical to my belief... your ascension is, in point of fact, irrelevant to my faith.

I see the evidence, I recognize it as sufficient an understanding to compell my own ascension; and your doubts, your belief, is wholly your own... and one for which you're responsible; a choice to which you will answer on that great gettin' up mornin'.

That you are compelled to ask these questions, is enough evidence to prove that you know the answer and are desperate to avoid your responsibility... demanding greater levels of evidence to reject... in preparation for your personal, individual trial; which will result in your own final judgment.

I'd like to wish you good luck on that... but luck has nothing to do with it; as in that moment of clarity, all of your rationalizations will melt away and you'll be standing their intellectually naked... knowing the truth, even as you know it now; only then, you'll have no reason to reject it... no means to reject it; no facade with which to drape it... and you'll succumb to that knowledge... entirely too late.

How do you know?

How do I know that I exist? I simply know... and by the same means... I am lead by my understanding to know.

Why do you believe?

How can I not believe what I know?

Explain faith.

Faith is the vessel by which we travel, towards getting to the place which we cannot yet touch, but which our understanding assures us is our distination.

You woke up this morning did you not? And you left your bed on the faith that you would go somewhere... you knew that this place was there, despite there being no certainty that you would get there, that this place even existed... beyond your understanding that they existed... thus your faith that when you traveled there, that they would be there.

 

[Newby]

The religious comparison of liberalism to Catholicism was never part of my point...

The point of my post is that religion is a choice in how to live your life; perhaps, some would argue, also is liberalism - I won't argue that point either.

My thesis point was the value of recognizing the line between 'politics' (the setting of the rules and vision everyone MUST live by for a time) and 'religion' (the life-style we can choose to live by within the greater organization, no matter what politics come into fashion).

'Liberalism', like 'Conservatism' are not 'religions' in my book because their influence is, by mutual agreement of the entire group, forced on the entire group and their flavor is apt to change in the quest for votes, depending on public opinion. That is what makes them 'politics' instead.

Religion (lifestyle choices) doesn't need the approval of a geographic majority to apply policy to those who continue to claim it and support it. Religion (lifestyle choices) is willing to cater to smaller groups within the whole, and the fact that there are diametrically opposed choices in lifestyle is healthy for the larger organization, provided all the sub-groups can agree to some common rules (politics).

This, of course, is mostly theory. History has proven the shortsightedness of most lifestyle choices in their quest to be proven right if by no other means than to insist that every other lifestyle choice is wrong. Insist by violence if necessary.

As an example:

If one sub-group believes sex between consenting adults of the opposite sex is good and all other sex is bad, and another sub-group believes all sex between consenting adults is good, and yet another sub-group believes that the only good sex is sex between 2 and only 2 consenting adults of the opposite sex who have a state approved contract committing their lives together until divorce, then the common ground rule should be based on legal sex being between consenting adults, allowing all of the sub-groups to make their own policies for membership.

-Joe

I can't see the separation as clearly as you do when it comes to 'lifestyle choices' and politics, to my mind they are one and the same. Mandating where I can get my health benefits from just so that we can be sure that a minority of lower income in the country are covered, is all about lifestyle. And when they are determining what doctor you can see, what will be paid for based on your age, your sex, among other things, etc... they are making lifestyle choices for you. When they are determining what your appropriate salary should be (as is currently being suggested by the Treasury Secretary) they are making lifestyle choices. When they are mandating what types of cars can be produced in this country, they are making lifestyle choices for you. When they can determine what temperature you can set your thermostat at (this is coming) they are making lifestyle choices for you. When they take money out of your pay in order to 'save' it for you when you for when you retire instead of letting you invest it yourself (social security) they are making life style choices for you. Progressivism is getting their fingers into everyone's lives and making determinations for us that they believe they can make better than we can based upon their beliefs and opinions. And because those opinions and beliefs have nothing to do with 'religion', then it's a-okay to most of you. Then their opinions of how everyone should conduct their lives is acceptable. I just don't get it.

As I said, Newby... it is politics versus religion in theory. The spilling over of lifestyle choices into politics is what makes politics so passionately messy in our young democracy.

If everybody could take an honest look at their politics and remove all aspects of their lifestyle choices from the mix, focusing instead on establishing a set of rules based on the common do's and don'ts we can agree on, the point of this thread would be moot.

Unfortunately, it is virtually impossible to establish rules for the group without the various sub-groups asking "what's in it for me?" and/or finding offense in allowing behavior they find 'sinful', mostly for correctly fearing that their control over members will be hampered if people are truly free to choose. This problem is not new.

-Joe

This is already taken care of in the Constitution. The federal government was not given many of the powers that they currently have by the Constitution. And if some are enacted that I had listed, we are moving even further away from being a 'republic'. They just keep eating away at it little by little using what seemingly appears to be 'emergencies' to take advantage, along with the fact that the average American knows nothing about the Constitution and scope of the government versus individual liberties. I just got done reading CMM's responses to this same post and it's clear that he has no idea what is coming. People need to educate themselves. He's still stuck in the 'religion' aspect when there is no religion involved in anything that I said, nor have I ever supported the government doing anything in the name of religion. He's well trained, or brainwashed, whichever way you want to look at it. It's sad.

 

[Newby]

Progressivism is getting their fingers into everyone's lives and making determinations for us that they believe they can make better than we can based upon their beliefs and opinions. And because those opinions and beliefs have nothing to do with 'religion', then it's a-okay to most of you. Then their opinions of how everyone should conduct their lives is acceptable. I just don't get it.

There is a difference between opinions and beliefs and obervable reality, even if the difference is hard to determine. Now whether Progressivism is best, I don't know. But you certainly don't like it and it would only be hypocritical if you wanted similar legislation, right? So if you don't like that the fed takes money out of your paycheck and puts it in social security, think of how bad homosexuals feel that heterosexuals can marry and they can't!

Progressivism/socialism being better for our country is an observable reality? If that's the case, it's only been proven time and again that it does not work. Socialism has never been proven to work, it's purely opinion and belief that we would be better off under such a system. What they are currently doing with the economy is only theory, they have no idea if what they are doing will work. And we will soon learn that it did not, your evidence is coming. But, they're sure as hell using it to cause wide spread alarm and grab power as quickly as they can. Nationalizing banks, nationalizing automobile corporations, setting salaries, guaranteeing warranties???? Tripling the national debt in 60 days? Your great grandchildren will be paying for all of this. This is the job of the federal government??? Please, do us all a favor and go read the damn Constitution. There are far greater things to worry about at the moment than homosexual rights, sorry if my concern is not placed there at the moment.

I can't see the separation as clearly as you do when it comes to 'lifestyle choices' and politics, to my mind they are one and the same.

What if your children were made to bow to Mecca at public schools? Would you be okay with that? Public schools should show no preference for one religion or another. That's politics. It has to do with public funding. Now if the clergy at your church tells you that you shouldn't bow to Mecca because you're a Christian, that's lifestyle.

What the hell are you talking about??? I'm beginning to think that you're completely obsessed with whatever fiction you've created in your own brain. Public schools haven't showed preferences for any religion in YEARS. No one on here has even said anything to the contrary. Where do you come up with this shit?

Once again they are using public money so this is politics. You have to pay taxes. I don't think we should pay income tax (tell that to the IRS!), but we do have to pay taxes so that we can fund the government we are supposed to control. If our representatives think that its best for society to ensure everyone has healthcare with the money we all give the government, its politics. If you don't want to go where the government tells you, that's lifestyle.

The government was never intended to provide you with everything you needed from the time you were born until the time that you die. For supposedly being an educated man, coming from an educated family, you have absolutely zero concept of what this country and the Constitution that founded it was based on. It is not the feds job to provide everyone with freakin' health care. It's not my job to pay for your damn health insurance. And currently, no one in the lower income bracket gets turned away for health care as it is illegal for any hospital to turn anyone away or refuse to provide service when needed. If there are cases where people need help, then help them, but that doesn't mean that you turn over one of the country's largest priviate industries to the federal government. What is it with you that you put all of your trust into them to do the right thing? We do not control them, don't you get it yet? You are placing in their hands yet one more huge thing for them to control in your life, and for what reason? What have they ever done to earn your trust? Look at social security and the mess that it's in, look at the deficit they are running under and they just keep spending with no end in sight. And these are the people that you want to trust with your health? You want to give them the power to decide about your own health care?

This isn't, hasn't, and won't happen. This is the fear tactics that the private medical companies propagandize so that they won't lose money. Under Obama's plan you get to choose your doctor and everyone will get the same coverage depending on income and pre-existing coverage. Is it the best way to do it? I don't know. However, I think every US citizen has a right to healthcare, and Obama's plan, according to some, should alleviate the burden of bankruptcies on the economy. I don't know if I buy it, but its better than people dying in emergency rooms for lack of care.

You are a complete fool if you believe that. You really need to do some research about what goes on in Canada and what is going on in England. Everyone can have healthcare without them taking over the entire medical industry, there are much, much better alternatives. You're going to regret advocating for this someday.

I really doubt this will happen. Sounds like right-wing scare tactics propaganda to me.

It's happening right now. Don't you listen to the news???

The reason why liberals want to mandate what types of vehicle can be manufactured is #1) because capitalism didn't work - the car companies are going broke and #2) because scientific research, albeit controversial, suggests that global warming is accelerating. There is a correlation between the burning of carbon based fuels and accelerated global warming. So, in order to protect all living things and maintain a quality of life, many liberals want to make it so that you have to drive either a fuel efficient vehicle or one that doesn't use fossil fuels. This isn't arbitrary. Unlike Prop. 8. There is scientific research here. There is also logic. Let's say those scientists are wrong. Global warming isn't happening. Do we know for sure one way or another? No. But if we bet on that global warming isn't happening and behave the way we have and 20 years from now we find out we're wrong...That's a hell of a gamble to make. I'd rather play it safe and live in a less polluted world even if global warming isn't happening.

Capitalism didn't work??? That says it all right there. What will work? What do you advocate? Communism? Government ownership of everything? How radical are you really? This country has gotten to where it is at on the concept of a free market and a free citizenry, with the idea of having a small, non-intusive government. Right now it's all going to hell in a hand basket because of the instrusiveness of a government that is out of control. Global warming?? Another good one. Do you have any idea of the amount of money to be made off of the carbon credit industry? Do you realize how you're being duped? It's all about money, power, and control brother, and you just don't get it. Once again you've proven that you are all about controling your neighbor far more than any christian is out to control you. You want to take their money and distribute it as you see fit, you want to tell them how much water they can use, you want to tell them where to keep their themostat, you want to tell them what kind of car they can drive, you want to tell them what health insurance they will have. You're just a complete and total hypocrit. You create an entire damn thread about how the evil Christians want to control your life, without providing any evidence to even support the claim, while you sit there and think that you should be able to determine how a person lives, what money they get to keep. I don't understand how you cannot see the irony in this. You are far more dangerous than any christian that I know.

When they can determine what temperature you can set your thermostat at (this is coming) they are making lifestyle choices for you.

Sounds like more right-wing propaganda. How would this be enforced?

Your buddy, Obama, talked about it in his campaign speeches so I didn't make anything up. It's coming.

When they take money out of your pay in order to 'save' it for you when you for when you retire instead of letting you invest it yourself (social security) they are making life style choices for you.

The majority of Americans want social security. However, you can apply to be exempt from social security. I don't remember the details, but you can probably find some information about this. There's your lifestyle choice.

You absolutely cannot be 'exempt' from social security. I'm going to call you on that one. Provide proof.

The difference is that politics shouldn't be based on arbitrary rules that come from an ancient book. You can stereotype liberals if you want, but just remember, most liberals only want what they believe is best. Conservatives do as well. The devil is in the details and both sides are equally guilty in that regard.

Again, where has anyone said that politics should be based on 'arbitrary rules from an ancient book'? You are obsessed. Nothing I said in my post had anything to do with that at all, yet here you are back at the again like it's some kind of a valid argument against anything that I said. You really need to find a new scapegoat, cause this one is wearing thin.

 

[Newby]

See this thread, CMM, it doesn't get much clearer than that, and it is exactly what I believe in, not the government.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/72675-socialism-a-rationalization-of-escape.html