For Those Who Do Believe In God...

[PubliusInfinitum]

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.​

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.

What personal creator?

I conceive this.
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.

Yet again, we're treated to Loki's attempt to apply logic, which operates within the scope of human understanding to a calaculation which seeks to understand that which falls beyond the scope of human understanding.

Loki readily admits the existance of the effect, but quickly demands evidence of the cause; and due to there being no understanding of the cause, his reasoning forces him to reject the existance of that cause. Where, upon the mere noting of that indisputable fact, he runs to delare that the very existance of this simple and undeniable observation, represents the fallacious begging of the question: 'what was the cause' and projects the responsibility for that upon the opposition.

ROCK SOLID!

All that which falls beyond our understanding must be reasoned upon some assumed starting point which falls within our understanding... I doubt even the great doubter himself would argue that point.

So given that certainty, what pray tell, is the point of questioning the assumption of the creator Loki? What, in your mind, is so threatening about the realization that you're being, is not the top of the being heap?

Have you ever asked yourself what is the source of an inspiration which is determined to reject something which is beyond your means to effect, and the rejection of such can serve no potential good, for you or anyone else?

You're student of reason... yet the certainty that such an inspiration can not possibly rest in sound reasoning, seems to have escaped you.

What up wit dat?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Newby, I think you didn't read my whole post. I said I didn't know if Obama's plans are the best ideas. I'm not advocating for his administration or what the Democrats are doing.

I also don't care what the Constitution didn't say. I care about what I think is moral, and I think health care that doesn't bankrupt people is moral. And, if Obama is right, it will help the economy in the long run because people won't be filing bankruptcy even nearly as frequently. Supposedly medical costs are the leading cause of bankruptcy in the nation.

In my opinion, Social Security is a good idea. Obviously its flawed, but I trust the government more than I do private companies. Why? Because no one has lost their social security and many people have lost their 401k's, retirement benefits, investments, etc. etc. because private companies engaged in risky business practices which may have been unethical. The government is partly at fault, yes, but we can vote new politicians into office on platforms of reform and hope for the best.

Capitalism didn't work when it came to our auto industry. Or, I should say, it didn't succeed. Ford, GM, and Chrysler are facing bankruptcy because they sold unreliable, gas guzzling vehicles that no one wanted to buy and ignored the market trends. Now how many people will be laid off or go out of business because of that? Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Or millions?

I've done lots of research on foreign nationalized health care, and you know what, to me, its seems a lot better than what we have. By the way, you do pay for my health care: I'm a vet!

What do you think about this idea: we do like Israel and everyone has to do either civil (community) or military service and then they get social healthcare like our vets do now? I don't know if that's a great idea, or if it would work, but it seems like a good idea.

By the way, no need to get nasty. I didn't insult you, so, please treat me with the same kind of respect.

 

[Newby]

Newby, I think you didn't read my whole post. I said I didn't know if Obama's plans are the best ideas. I'm not advocating for his administration or what the Democrats are doing.

I also don't care what the Constitution didn't say. I care about what I think is moral, and I think health care that doesn't bankrupt people is moral. And, if Obama is right, it will help the economy in the long run because people won't be filing bankruptcy even nearly as frequently. Supposedly medical costs are the leading cause of bankruptcy in the nation.

In my opinion, Social Security is a good idea. Obviously its flawed, but I trust the government more than I do private companies. Why? Because no one has lost their social security and many people have lost their 401k's, retirement benefits, investments, etc. etc. because private companies engaged in risky business practices which may have been unethical. The government is partly at fault, yes, but we can vote new politicians into office on platforms of reform and hope for the best.

Capitalism didn't work when it came to our auto industry. Or, I should say, it didn't succeed. Ford, GM, and Chrysler are facing bankruptcy because they sold unreliable, gas guzzling vehicles that no one wanted to buy and ignored the market trends. Now how many people will be laid off or go out of business because of that? Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Or millions?

I've done lots of research on foreign nationalized health care, and you know what, to me, its seems a lot better than what we have. By the way, you do pay for my health care: I'm a vet!

What do you think about this idea: we do like Israel and everyone has to do either civil (community) or military service and then they get social healthcare like our vets do now? I don't know if that's a great idea, or if it would work, but it seems like a good idea.

By the way, no need to get nasty. I didn't insult you, so, please treat me with the same kind of respect.

I did read your whole post, I responded to every piece of it.

You care about what YOU THINK IS MORAL? How is that any different than a christian caring about what he/she thinks is moral? Why is it okay to force your moral beliefs on everyone? Simply b/c they're not grounded in religion? Let's get religion completely out of the picture, because no one is advocating to force religion on anyone thru legislation. I'm tired of hearing that as the counter argument to everything a conservative says, because it's simply not true. You have your morals, I don't care where they come from, that doesn't give you the right to force yours on me any more than I have the right to force mine on you. The origin is immaterial. That's point one. Point two is that the Constitution is the LAW OF THE LAND, regardless of whether or not you think it should be, and it's created a country of wealth and prosperity and opportunity for all to acheive whatever they want. Third, the statistics that you heard Obama quote about bankruptsies b/c of medical bills is inaccurate. I've seen that addressed on several news shows, but of course it was not covered on most main stream media that I know of. If you work out the numbers that he quoted, it's not even possible, there aren't even that many bankruptsies total, so you are misinformed about that. Most uninsured are illegal immigrants and younger people who choose to go without insurance, they're taking the gamble. And as I stated before, that is no excuse to take over the entire medical industries, there are much better, more viable solutions.

No one has lost their social security? Tell me, who gets if you die before being able to collect it? The government does. If it's money of yours that they took in order to force you to save for retirement (at a completely pitiful ROI), then shouldn't at least your family get it, which would be the case were you allowed to take that money and place it in a private account that you owned.

I guess the unions and the millions upon millions that they paid out to worker for years who sat in the 'jobs bank' weren't any part of the problem at all? And you say that they failed b/c they didn't listen to the market? Isn't any company that doesn't listen to the market going to fail? You're admitting that the free market drives what is successful and what is not? How is the government forcing the manufacture to make what cars it thinks should be made is catering to the market? It's not. It's up to the stockholders and the boards of these companies to set the goals for private companies, not the government. If they don't perform adequately, they fail. If you're stupid enough to put all of your eggs into one basket and lose all your money, then educate yourself before you do it again. The enitre market is down b/c of the banking industry, which the government played a major role in bringing about. It's not capitalism that failed, it's that it wasn't left alone and was meddled with by the government that brought about all of these problems.

You haven't done much research then. Why don't you look to see what Britian is doing right now. I don't remember the specifics, but the last story that I heard was in regards to denying certain medication to elderly patients with cancer b/c they weren't deemed worthy enough (too old) to account for the cost. They're potential contribution to society wasn't worth enough to counter the costs of the medication. If you think coroporations are cold, you haven't seen anything as to what the state can do once it gets it's claws into you. I have no problem with paying for vet's health insurance, they worked for it.

Well, they're passing bills right now in the House, H.R.1388 – The GIVE ACT, and the Senate in order to start Obama's brown shirt crusade. You know where he mentioned in that one speech about starting a 'volunteer' civic service crusade that would eventually be better funded than the US Military?

“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that is just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded.”

Altho, they've conveniently scrubbed those words from the speeches that he has posted on his websites. You can still find it on YouTube though.

They forced them to remove verbage from the bill that may indicate that this service would be mandatory, but not to worry, they're trying to slip it in via another House Bill H.R. 1444. Even tho it directly conflicts with the Constitution:

Amendment XIII
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

But, who cares, it's only the Constitution and individual freedom isn't important, right?

I'm very passionate about what is happening to our country, and whenever I see someone like you who doesn't seem to have a clue or even appreciate what you were given by being born here and how it is being stolen away from us, it is very frustrating to me. You're so ready to trample over everyone to get your moral agenda passed, while at the same time screaming about christians forcing their values on you, it's extremely frustrating.

 

[AllieBaba]

No kidding. Rep for you.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Newby, I think you didn't read my whole post. I said I didn't know if Obama's plans are the best ideas. I'm not advocating for his administration or what the Democrats are doing.

I also don't care what the Constitution didn't say. I care about what I think is moral, and I think health care that doesn't bankrupt people is moral. And, if Obama is right, it will help the economy in the long run because people won't be filing bankruptcy even nearly as frequently. Supposedly medical costs are the leading cause of bankruptcy in the nation.

In my opinion, Social Security is a good idea. Obviously its flawed, but I trust the government more than I do private companies. Why? Because no one has lost their social security and many people have lost their 401k's, retirement benefits, investments, etc. etc. because private companies engaged in risky business practices which may have been unethical. The government is partly at fault, yes, but we can vote new politicians into office on platforms of reform and hope for the best.

Capitalism didn't work when it came to our auto industry. Or, I should say, it didn't succeed. Ford, GM, and Chrysler are facing bankruptcy because they sold unreliable, gas guzzling vehicles that no one wanted to buy and ignored the market trends. Now how many people will be laid off or go out of business because of that? Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Or millions?

I've done lots of research on foreign nationalized health care, and you know what, to me, its seems a lot better than what we have. By the way, you do pay for my health care: I'm a vet!

What do you think about this idea: we do like Israel and everyone has to do either civil (community) or military service and then they get social healthcare like our vets do now? I don't know if that's a great idea, or if it would work, but it seems like a good idea.

By the way, no need to get nasty. I didn't insult you, so, please treat me with the same kind of respect.

I did read your whole post, I responded to every piece of it.

You care about what YOU THINK IS MORAL? How is that any different than a christian caring about what he/she thinks is moral? Why is it okay to force your moral beliefs on everyone? Simply b/c they're not grounded in religion? Let's get religion completely out of the picture, because no one is advocating to force religion on anyone thru legislation. I'm tired of hearing that as the counter argument to everything a conservative says, because it's simply not true. You have your morals, I don't care where they come from, that doesn't give you the right to force yours on me any more than I have the right to force mine on you. The origin is immaterial. That's point one. Point two is that the Constitution is the LAW OF THE LAND, regardless of whether or not you think it should be, and it's created a country of wealth and prosperity and opportunity for all to acheive whatever they want. Third, the statistics that you heard Obama quote about bankruptsies b/c of medical bills is inaccurate. I've seen that addressed on several news shows, but of course it was not covered on most main stream media that I know of. If you work out the numbers that he quoted, it's not even possible, there aren't even that many bankruptsies total, so you are misinformed about that. Most uninsured are illegal immigrants and younger people who choose to go without insurance, they're taking the gamble. And as I stated before, that is no excuse to take over the entire medical industries, there are much better, more viable solutions.

No one has lost their social security? Tell me, who gets if you die before being able to collect it? The government does. If it's money of yours that they took in order to force you to save for retirement (at a completely pitiful ROI), then shouldn't at least your family get it, which would be the case were you allowed to take that money and place it in a private account that you owned.

I guess the unions and the millions upon millions that they paid out to worker for years who sat in the 'jobs bank' weren't any part of the problem at all? And you say that they failed b/c they didn't listen to the market? Isn't any company that doesn't listen to the market going to fail? You're admitting that the free market drives what is successful and what is not? How is the government forcing the manufacture to make what cars it thinks should be made is catering to the market? It's not. It's up to the stockholders and the boards of these companies to set the goals for private companies, not the government. If they don't perform adequately, they fail. If you're stupid enough to put all of your eggs into one basket and lose all your money, then educate yourself before you do it again. The enitre market is down b/c of the banking industry, which the government played a major role in bringing about. It's not capitalism that failed, it's that it wasn't left alone and was meddled with by the government that brought about all of these problems.

You haven't done much research then. Why don't you look to see what Britian is doing right now. I don't remember the specifics, but the last story that I heard was in regards to denying certain medication to elderly patients with cancer b/c they weren't deemed worthy enough (too old) to account for the cost. They're potential contribution to society wasn't worth enough to counter the costs of the medication. If you think coroporations are cold, you haven't seen anything as to what the state can do once it gets it's claws into you. I have no problem with paying for vet's health insurance, they worked for it.

Well, they're passing bills right now in the House, H.R.1388 – The GIVE ACT, and the Senate in order to start Obama's brown shirt crusade. You know where he mentioned in that one speech about starting a 'volunteer' civic service crusade that would eventually be better funded than the US Military?

“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that is just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded.”

Altho, they've conveniently scrubbed those words from the speeches that he has posted on his websites. You can still find it on YouTube though.

They forced them to remove verbage from the bill that may indicate that this service would be mandatory, but not to worry, they're trying to slip it in via another House Bill H.R. 1444. Even tho it directly conflicts with the Constitution:

Amendment XIII
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

But, who cares, it's only the Constitution and individual freedom isn't important, right?

I'm very passionate about what is happening to our country, and whenever I see someone like you who doesn't seem to have a clue or even appreciate what you were given by being born here and how it is being stolen away from us, it is very frustrating to me. You're so ready to trample over everyone to get your moral agenda passed, while at the same time screaming about christians forcing their values on you, it's extremely frustrating.

CRUSHING! Lethal in its reasoning...

Well said Newby.

BRAVO!

 

[LOki]

Yet again, we're treated to Loki's attempt to apply logic, which operates within the scope of human understanding to a calaculation which seeks to understand that which falls beyond the scope of human understanding.

What calculation are you talking about? One of your calculations, that is founded on a "vague 'feeling' with no real basis in actual fact"? Yet again, even my amateur application of logic is more than adequate to refute the superstitious.

Loki readily admits the existance of the effect, but quickly demands evidence of the cause; . . .

I do not pretend to be so certain that the universe is the effect of anything to call it such; but of those who are so certain, I do call into question the basis of their certainty. So often it's just a "vague 'feeling' with no real basis in actual fact."

. . . and due to there being no understanding of the cause, his reasoning forces him to reject the existance of that cause.

Nonsense. Since the superstitious establish their certainty solely upon a "vague 'feeling' with no real basis in actual fact", I reject only the notion that their superstition is objectivily superior to any other superstition; and I reject the notion that superstitions are fundamentally superior to certainties founded upon evidence and valid reasoning.

Where, upon the mere noting of that indisputable fact, . . .

What indisputable fact might that be?

. . . he runs to delare that the very existance of this simple and undeniable observation, . . .

Which simple and undeniable observation might that be?

. . . represents the fallacious begging of the question: 'what was the cause' and projects the responsibility for that upon the opposition.

ROCK SOLID!

Testify!

All that which falls beyond our understanding must be reasoned upon some assumed starting point which falls within our understanding... I doubt even the great doubter himself would argue that point.

I argue the point. There is no need to assume that existence exists--doubting it is self-contradictory: see stolen concept fallacy.

So given that certainty, what pray tell, is the point of questioning the assumption of the creator Loki?

The assumption that "the creator" exists is baseless. That is the point.

What, in your mind, is so threatening about the realization that you're being, is not the top of the being heap?

Oh, let's not reprise this baseless and tiresome accusation again. I don't presume I'm at the "top of the being heap" and there's no threat involved. What, in your mind, is so threatening about the realization that asserting absolute certainty based on faith, is inferior to admitting ignorance?

Have you ever asked yourself what is the source of an inspiration which is determined to reject something which is beyond your means to effect, and the rejection of such can serve no potential good, for you or anyone else?

Sure--the answer is superstition. Superstition inspires your determination to reject something which is beyond your means to effect, and the rejection of such can serve no potential good, for you or anyone else.

You're student of reason... yet the certainty that such an inspiration can not possibly rest in sound reasoning, seems to have escaped you.

What up wit dat?

I'm not superstitious.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Yet again, we're treated to Loki's attempt to apply logic, which operates within the scope of human understanding to a calaculation which seeks to understand that which falls beyond the scope of human understanding.

What calculation are you talking about?

Your calaculation which seeks to understand that which falls beyond the scope of human understanding; and uses the absent of that understanding to build the false premise that such means we understand everything... Your usual obtuse schtick...

Loki readily admits the existance of the effect, but quickly demands evidence of the cause; . . .

I do not pretend to be so certain that the universe is the effect of anything to call it such; but of those who are so certain, I do call into question the basis of their certainty. So often it's just a "vague 'feeling' with no real basis in actual fact."

Whether you're position is a pretense or heartfelt is your business... and the degree of your certainty is known only to you and irrelevant to this discussion. But that the Universe is an effect of something is self evident... it exist, there fore it was created. All that matter came from somewhere... and that we do not understand where that was or how it came along or who initiated it... doesn't alter what those realities are.

Just as a feeling can be the effect of an unknown cause, not knowing that cause does not relegate such unknown causes to less than factual... the basis is unknown... that doesn't undermine it being real, nor does it establish it as less than factual.

You'd think that as a student of reason you'd understand that...

All that which falls beyond our understanding must be reasoned upon some assumed starting point which falls within our understanding... I doubt even the great doubter himself would argue that point.

I argue the point. There is no need to assume that existence exists--

What a STUNNING point that would be, IF the issue was an assumption which proves our existance...

Of course, that's not the issue, thus it's a flaccid side note in an otherwise uninspired defense... I guess I sorta expected more out of ya...

What, in your mind, is so threatening about the realization that you're being, is not the top of the being heap?

I don't presume I'm at the "top of the being heap"

So there's no explanation then for your irrational desire to refute the the existance of a Creator...

Color me SHOCKED!

Have you ever asked yourself what is the source of an inspiration which is determined to reject something which is beyond your means to effect, and the rejection of such can serve no potential good, for you or anyone else?

Sure--the answer is superstition. Superstition inspires your determination to reject something which is beyond your means to effect, and the rejection of such can serve no potential good, for you or anyone else.

LOL... Oh so you're hoping to project the concept superstition onto the certainty that the Universe was created, thus the certainty that there exist a Creator...

Well that's as useful as any other non sequitur I suppose... It doesn't serve your argument, but hey... that's been the nature of this farce, so why change up now?

You're student of reason... yet the certainty that such an inspiration can not possibly rest in sound reasoning, seems to have escaped you.

What up wit dat?

I'm not superstitious.

LOL... Oh now that's just sad...

Come on LOki... You feelin OK? Flu gotcha down? Just can't get it up for a sound argument?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

I did read your whole post, I responded to every piece of it.

Then, I guess, you didn't understand it very well.

You care about what YOU THINK IS MORAL? How is that any different than a christian caring about what he/she thinks is moral? Why is it okay to force your moral beliefs on everyone? Simply b/c they're not grounded in religion?

No, because my morals are grounded in rational thinking, reason, and experience. I don't want people to go bankrupt cause they got sick and the insurance company wouldn't cover them because it was unprofitable for the insurance company. To me, that is injustice.

Do you think people who can't get coverage should go bankrupt?

Because an ancient book quotes a God, for whose existencet there isn't any evidence, who says homosexuals should be stoned to death doesn't make it reality. Its faith based. Not based in reason. Do you think reason is invalid? If so, then why did your God make humans the only life capable of reasoning?

Let's get religion completely out of the picture, because no one is advocating to force religion on anyone thru legislation.

Oh really?
Creationism in school:
Texas School Board Set to Vote on Challenge to Evolution - WSJ.com

Prop. 8? And other laws?
Christianity & Homosexuality in America: Violence, Discrimination, Hatred

The constant threats to Roe v. Wade?
Roe v. Wade under threat / Library / Issues and Analysis / Home - AWID

The Missing Key of the Pro-Life Movement

Has the Pro-Life Movement Failed? Not By a Long Shot, Ask an Abortion Doctor

Euthanasia laws?
Euthanasia laws - Information on the law about Euthanasia

Religious commandments put in public buildings?
Posting the Ten Commandments on Public Buildings

Other:
Unconstitutional, Religious Legislation | Progressive U

Democracy in America - Google Book Search

Christianity and the American Constitution

Talk To Action | Iowa Representative Passes Pro-Christian Legislation, Urges Americans to "Worship Christ"

Here's some examples of what non-Christians find so threatening about the extremely powerful lobby of Christian grass-roots organizations who wield some of the most powerful influence in government:

Christian Legislation America as a Christian Nation -- The Founder's Intent

Magic City Morning Star: Christianity and Our U.S. Constitution

Can you come up with real world arguments, not religious ones, why these laws are enacted and enforced?

I'm tired of hearing that as the counter argument to everything a conservative says, because it's simply not true. You have your morals, I don't care where they come from, that doesn't give you the right to force yours on me any more than I have the right to force mine on you. The origin is immaterial. That's point one.

No, that's not the point. The point is that your morality comes from an ancient book that you believe is true because of unscientific faith. That's fine. Believe it. My morals come from rational thinking, research, and experience:

Humanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Council for Secular Humanism

What is Humanism?

Point two is that the Constitution is the LAW OF THE LAND, regardless of whether or not you think it should be, and it's created a country of wealth and prosperity and opportunity for all to acheive whatever they want.

That's the American Dream, though very few actually ever achieve it despite their best efforts. Conservatives seem to be more concerned with money than anything else. All I ever hear them talk about is their money.

Third, the statistics that you heard Obama quote about bankruptsies b/c of medical bills is inaccurate. I've seen that addressed on several news shows, but of course it was not covered on most main stream media that I know of. If you work out the numbers that he quoted, it's not even possible, there aren't even that many bankruptsies total, so you are misinformed about that.

How do you know you information is more accurate than someone else's?

Most uninsured are illegal immigrants and younger people who choose to go without insurance, they're taking the gamble.

And, of course, those people who insurance companies feel would be unprofitable to insure. Like the elderly, among others.

And as I stated before, that is no excuse to take over the entire medical industries, there are much better, more viable solutions.

Like what? Don't just criticize but put forth an example of your opinions.

No one has lost their social security? Tell me, who gets if you die before being able to collect it? The government does. If it's money of yours that they took in order to force you to save for retirement (at a completely pitiful ROI), then shouldn't at least your family get it, which would be the case were you allowed to take that money and place it in a private account that you owned.

Like I said, its flawed. But at least those who make it to 64 or 67 or whatever age it is, get to collect. Unlike all those who lost everything because of private companies.

I guess the unions and the millions upon millions that they paid out to worker for years who sat in the 'jobs bank' weren't any part of the problem at all? And you say that they failed b/c they didn't listen to the market? Isn't any company that doesn't listen to the market going to fail? You're admitting that the free market drives what is successful and what is not? How is the government forcing the manufacture to make what cars it thinks should be made is catering to the market? It's not. It's up to the stockholders and the boards of these companies to set the goals for private companies, not the government. If they don't perform adequately, they fail. If you're stupid enough to put all of your eggs into one basket and lose all your money, then educate yourself before you do it again. The enitre market is down b/c of the banking industry, which the government played a major role in bringing about. It's not capitalism that failed, it's that it wasn't left alone and was meddled with by the government that brought about all of these problems.

Yes, I'm sure the big bad government caused the automobile industry to fail despite the Bush Administration being in their pockets...

You haven't done much research then. Why don't you look to see what Britian is doing right now. I don't remember the specifics, but the last story that I heard was in regards to denying certain medication to elderly patients with cancer b/c they weren't deemed worthy enough (too old) to account for the cost. They're potential contribution to society wasn't worth enough to counter the costs of the medication. If you think coroporations are cold, you haven't seen anything as to what the state can do once it gets it's claws into you.

Where did you get that story? I haven't done enough research? Any and all citizens in the UK are covered. Same with France, Germany, etc. Look it up. More rightwing propaganda.

I have no problem with paying for vet's health insurance, they worked for it.

I agree.

Well, they're passing bills right now in the House, H.R.1388 – The GIVE ACT, and the Senate in order to start Obama's brown shirt crusade. You know where he mentioned in that one speech about starting a 'volunteer' civic service crusade that would eventually be better funded than the US Military?

So what? Let's fund a civic service that creates things instead of funding a military that kills people and funds corrupt corporations like Halliburton and Blackwater. Seems good to me.

“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that is just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded.”

Altho, they've conveniently scrubbed those words from the speeches that he has posted on his websites. You can still find it on YouTube though.

I don't see anything wrong with that.

They forced them to remove verbage from the bill that may indicate that this service would be mandatory, but not to worry, they're trying to slip it in via another House Bill H.R. 1444.

Sounds conspiratorial to me. Sounds like rightwing propaganda.

Even tho it directly conflicts with the Constitution:

Amendment XIII
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Kinda like the draft the conservatives were proposing to reinstate after 9/11.

But, who cares, it's only the Constitution and individual freedom isn't important, right?

What? The Constitution is important. So is individual freedom. But morality is more important. And reality is more important than religion. Sorry, if you don't like my opinion.

I'm very passionate about what is happening to our country,

I can see that.

and whenever I see someone like you who doesn't seem to have a clue

From my perspective, you, my friend, lack the clues...

or even appreciate what you were given by being born here and how it is being stolen away from us,

I've worked for everything I've earned. I grew up poor, joined the Corps, used the GI Bill to pay for school, got a job, and worked. I appreciate what I've got. Try again.

it is very frustrating to me.

I can see why you would feel that way. I'm very frustrated about what other folks are trying to do to my freedoms, liberties, and rights. I don't base my freedoms, liberties, and rights on only the Constitution. I base them on what I think is moral.

You're so ready to trample over everyone to get your moral agenda passed, while at the same time screaming about christians forcing their values on you, it's extremely frustrating.

My moral agenda is this: end poverty, equal rights, responsible environmental stewardship, and freedom from religion. Do you have a problem with those morals?

 

[LOki]

Yet again, we're treated to Loki's attempt to apply logic, which operates within the scope of human understanding to a calaculation which seeks to understand that which falls beyond the scope of human understanding.

What calculation are you talking about?

Your calaculation which seeks to understand that which falls beyond the scope of human understanding; . . .

False accusation.

. . . and uses the absent of that understanding to build the false premise that such means we understand everything... Your usual obtuse schtick...

Bring evidence--my own words--that asserts the notion that absence of understanding is ANY premise for the understanding of everything.

Making shit up . . . your usual intellectually dishonest schtick.

Whether you're position is a pretense or heartfelt is your business... and the degree of your certainty is known only to you and irrelevant to this discussion.

I would only hope you had the capacity of intellectual integrity that would have you judge your very own certainty the same.

But that the Universe is an effect of something is self evident...

If you can deny that your imaginary creator is an effect, I can deny the universe is an effect by not only your own arguments, but also by evidence.

. . . it exist, there fore it was created.

Demonstrate. Try to avoid logical fallacy this time.

All that matter came from somewhere...

Says you, while failing to explain where all your imaginary creator came from.

. . . and that we do not understand where that was or how it came along or who initiated it...

Well, you claim to know.

. . . doesn't alter what those realities are.

Neither does your imaginary creator.

Just as a feeling can be the effect of an unknown cause, not knowing that cause does not relegate such unknown causes to less than factual... the basis is unknown... that doesn't undermine it being real, nor does it establish it as less than factual.

But making shit up does.

You'd think that as a student of reason you'd understand that...

I do understand that, but it doesn't even apply to your bullshit.

All that which falls beyond our understanding must be reasoned upon some assumed starting point which falls within our understanding... I doubt even the great doubter himself would argue that point.

I argue the point. There is no need to assume that existence exists--doubting it is self-contradictory: see stolen concept fallacy.

What a STUNNING point that would be, IF the issue was an assumption which proves our existance...

Of course, that's not the issue, thus it's a flaccid side note in an otherwise uninspired defense... I guess I sorta expected more out of ya...

Of course, you have to baselessly declare the more than adequate rebuttal to your challenge ["All that which falls beyond our understanding must be reasoned upon some assumed starting point which falls within our understanding..."] as "a flaccid side note in an otherwise uninspired defense." It 's your usual intellectually dishonest schtick.

So there's no explanation then for your irrational desire to refute the the existance of a Creator...

Color me SHOCKED!

I'm not so shocked that you'd dishonestly accuse me of a desire to refute the existence of a creator. You're just bright enough to know that not once have I set out to refute the existence of a creator--you certainly have no evidence at all by which to come to such conclusion--you knowingly pass this disinformation as the truth.

LOL... Oh so you're hoping to project the concept superstition onto the certainty that the Universe was created, thus the certainty that there exist a Creator...

Superstition is the appropriate term.

Well that's as useful as any other non sequitur I suppose... It doesn't serve your argument, but hey... that's been the nature of this farce, so why change up now?

I know you're aware of the definition of "non-sequitur", because I looked it up for you--your misuse is just more intellectual dishonesty. You're just smart enough to look up superstition"--bring a validly reasoned explanation why I'm failing to use the term properly.

 

[Kalam]

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.

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what question-begging is, or you're being disingenuous. Repeating an inaccurate accusation over and over again won't make it any more true.

I can provide another rephrasing of the argument, if you'd like.

1. Every event has a cause.
2. The physical universe has a beginning.
3. All beginnings involve an event.
4. This implies that the beginning of the physical universe involved an event.
5. Therefore, the physical universe has a cause.

Once again, the conclusion does not appear as a premise.

EDIT: BTW, "a portion of an actual infinity is equal to infinity" is an example of a compositional error,​

How's that? Poor word choice, maybe, but what I said is correct. The number of natural numbers, a subset of real numbers, is equal to the number of real numbers.

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.

Time and number sets are completely different. As I've said, if the universe had always existed, it would have reached maximum entropy an infinite amount of time ago. It would be impossible to pinpoint exactly when maximum entropy was reached. No clear chronological distinction could be made between the point at which the universe was formed and the point at which it attained maximum entropy, as both events would have occurred an infinite amount of time ago.

"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.

How can you travel from point X (the universe's beginning) to point Y (now) if an infinite amount of points exist between X and Y?​

 

[Newby]

No, that's not the point. The point is that your morality comes from an ancient book that you believe is true because of unscientific faith. That's fine. Believe it. My morals come from rational thinking, research, and experience:

Humanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Council for Secular Humanism

What is Humanism?

Excuse my language, but what an arrogant asshole you are. How the hell do you know where my morality comes from? And who the hell are you to judge where I get my morality from and deem it invalid or worth any less than yours? Who the hell do you think you are? Rational thinking my ass, you wouldn't know a rational thought if it flew out of the air and slapped you in the face. You start a thread insulting people and their faith, their logic, their rationalization and sit there in judgment because you are so damn more intelligent and rationale because you study f-ing Humanism??? You sit there in your hypocrisy and pass judgment on people while you sit there bitching about how christians are passing judgment on you? And you're too damn caught up in your own self aggrandizement to even recognize that you are the epitome of passing judgment on people and setting yourself, your opinions, and your so-called intelligence above theirs because you think you know better. And not only that, you have no problem with using the power of the state to enforce your beliefs and opinions on others while at the same time you bitch about other groups doing the same thing. You really need a reality check, because you're not anywhere close to understanding a damn thing about society, people, religion, or morals.

 

[Newby]

I did read your whole post, I responded to every piece of it.

Then, I guess, you didn't understand it very well.

You care about what YOU THINK IS MORAL? How is that any different than a christian caring about what he/she thinks is moral? Why is it okay to force your moral beliefs on everyone? Simply b/c they're not grounded in religion?

No, because my morals are grounded in rational thinking, reason, and experience. I don't want people to go bankrupt cause they got sick and the insurance company wouldn't cover them because it was unprofitable for the insurance company. To me, that is injustice.

Do you think people who can't get coverage should go bankrupt?

Because an ancient book quotes a God, for whose existencet there isn't any evidence, who says homosexuals should be stoned to death doesn't make it reality. Its faith based. Not based in reason. Do you think reason is invalid? If so, then why did your God make humans the only life capable of reasoning?



Oh really?
Creationism in school:
Texas School Board Set to Vote on Challenge to Evolution - WSJ.com

Prop. 8? And other laws?
Christianity & Homosexuality in America: Violence, Discrimination, Hatred

The constant threats to Roe v. Wade?
Roe v. Wade under threat / Library / Issues and Analysis / Home - AWID

The Missing Key of the Pro-Life Movement

Has the Pro-Life Movement Failed? Not By a Long Shot, Ask an Abortion Doctor

Euthanasia laws?
Euthanasia laws - Information on the law about Euthanasia

Religious commandments put in public buildings?
Posting the Ten Commandments on Public Buildings

Other:
Unconstitutional, Religious Legislation | Progressive U

Democracy in America - Google Book Search

Christianity and the American Constitution

Talk To Action | Iowa Representative Passes Pro-Christian Legislation, Urges Americans to "Worship Christ"

Here's some examples of what non-Christians find so threatening about the extremely powerful lobby of Christian grass-roots organizations who wield some of the most powerful influence in government:

Christian Legislation America as a Christian Nation -- The Founder's Intent

Magic City Morning Star: Christianity and Our U.S. Constitution

Can you come up with real world arguments, not religious ones, why these laws are enacted and enforced?



No, that's not the point. The point is that your morality comes from an ancient book that you believe is true because of unscientific faith. That's fine. Believe it. My morals come from rational thinking, research, and experience:

Humanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Council for Secular Humanism

What is Humanism?



That's the American Dream, though very few actually ever achieve it despite their best efforts. Conservatives seem to be more concerned with money than anything else. All I ever hear them talk about is their money.



How do you know you information is more accurate than someone else's?



And, of course, those people who insurance companies feel would be unprofitable to insure. Like the elderly, among others.



Like what? Don't just criticize but put forth an example of your opinions.



Like I said, its flawed. But at least those who make it to 64 or 67 or whatever age it is, get to collect. Unlike all those who lost everything because of private companies.



Yes, I'm sure the big bad government caused the automobile industry to fail despite the Bush Administration being in their pockets...



Where did you get that story? I haven't done enough research? Any and all citizens in the UK are covered. Same with France, Germany, etc. Look it up. More rightwing propaganda.



I agree.



So what? Let's fund a civic service that creates things instead of funding a military that kills people and funds corrupt corporations like Halliburton and Blackwater. Seems good to me.



I don't see anything wrong with that.



Sounds conspiratorial to me. Sounds like rightwing propaganda.



Kinda like the draft the conservatives were proposing to reinstate after 9/11.



What? The Constitution is important. So is individual freedom. But morality is more important. And reality is more important than religion. Sorry, if you don't like my opinion.



I can see that.



From my perspective, you, my friend, lack the clues...



I've worked for everything I've earned. I grew up poor, joined the Corps, used the GI Bill to pay for school, got a job, and worked. I appreciate what I've got. Try again.

it is very frustrating to me.

I can see why you would feel that way. I'm very frustrated about what other folks are trying to do to my freedoms, liberties, and rights. I don't base my freedoms, liberties, and rights on only the Constitution. I base them on what I think is moral.

You're so ready to trample over everyone to get your moral agenda passed, while at the same time screaming about christians forcing their values on you, it's extremely frustrating.

My moral agenda is this: end poverty, equal rights, responsible environmental stewardship, and freedom from religion. Do you have a problem with those morals?

If nothing else, you've exposed yourself quite well in that response. You're a Marxist, you're not an American, you don't believe in the American Constitution or American Law. You want to subvert and overturn the Constitution and insert in it's place what you deem to be morally correct. You don't believe in individual liberty or individual freedom. Maybe someday you'll grow up and learn that you cannot legislate fairness and understand what the real world is about instead of sticking your head firmly in the sand and pretending that the world is something that it is not and never will be. If anything else comes out of this, I hope people are able to read your thoughts and what those like you are thinking and realize and understand how dangerous you are to this country.

 

[Newby]

Here's your hope and change for a socialized medical system:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/2512639/Kidney-patients-denied-too-expensive-life-extending-drugs.html

Here's what I was referring too with thermostat regulation:

Critics cool to 'smart thermostat' proposal

Educate yourself on bankruptcy numbers before making claims:

Obama’s Bankruptcy Math Has to be Wrong | OpenMarket.org

As far as H.R. 1444, all you have to do is google it and read it, but that would require you to take your damn head out of the sand. I'm sure an acutal bill in the House right now is a 'right wing propaganda'. Grow up.

 

[RodISHI]

And not just Christians.

Can you answer any or all of these questions for non-believers?

Possibly. Yet is a true answer from the heart what you are looking for?? from post I have read it does not appear to be the case. I'll will give my take on your questions though.

And be prepared if you answer, to defend your answer. Who knows? Maybe you'll just make a believer outta somebody.

God is a spirit. He can and will create believers. It is not something that any man of flesh can do. As people living here on earth we do not make believers. Although many seemed to percieve they can control and direct the Spirit of God.

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?

Is that a hope or just an inquisition? Your answer is actually in written into the Bible. Most people do not know or understand what hell is. Specifically hell is defined as seperation from God.

So then why would I choose to believe?

First you need to determine for yourself if you have a soul and go from there.

How do I choose to believe?

You would first need to look into your own heart and ask yourself if you would like that hope.

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

I do not belong to a religion so I can not answer this question.

How do you know?

I did an extreme self examination and search for truth some years back. In that I had written a book. I was awakened by the Holy Spirit. It is too lengthy to fully describe on an Internet forum yet I can share portions. I inspected occurances, pieces and parts in my life.

Example; I had a man come at me with a knife when I was nineteen. I was standing between him and my cousin. He fully intended and had proclaimed he was going to kill her. For an unexplainable reason at the time I knew he could not / would not hurt me. I told him he would have to get through me first. As he came at me he crumpled into a pile on the floor and the knife flew behind me. i would not recall the full incident until I was forty.

Another example; My son was pronounced brain dead. He was not yet two years old. The doctors said if he did live he would be a vegetable because he showed no brain activity whatsoever. Three days after he entered into the hospital we walked out of the hospital and he was whole. It is a longer story than that but that is the gist of it. My prayer was, "If you take him I will understand. If you leave him please leave him whole."

When I was five years old in the middle of the night I literally had laid down in the Colorado River to simply float away after an attack by an older family member. It was Easter weekend 1963. I was set on the bank of the river dry by the angel of the Lord and dragged back into the tent by the man's wife (my mom's aunt).

I have been blessed with visions from God throughout my whole life. When I was younger I thought I was simply weird and I had no clue how blessed I was. After that extreme self examination and the visit from the Holy Spirit I started to recall many of things I had seen over the years.

Why do you believe?

Because God created me a believer and He built that faith from the hope He had put within me.

Explain faith.

Faith begins as a hope and God builds it from there.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

If nothing else, you've exposed yourself quite well in that response. You're a Marxist, you're not an American, you don't believe in the American Constitution or American Law. You want to subvert and overturn the Constitution and insert in it's place what you deem to be morally correct. You don't believe in individual liberty or individual freedom. Maybe someday you'll grow up and learn that you cannot legislate fairness and understand what the real world is about instead of sticking your head firmly in the sand and pretending that the world is something that it is not and never will be. If anything else comes out of this, I hope people are able to read your thoughts and what those like you are thinking and realize and understand how dangerous you are to this country.

And you've exposed yourself as a nationalist and a slave to corporations, propaganda, and religious indoctrination. I admit that I relate to some of the things Marx wrote, but I was born in Denver so I am an American. I'm not a Marxist or a socialist or a communist, but I am an American. I'm me. That's what the US is all about - tolerance and individuality. Just because I don't believe the Constitution is the end all be all of ethical guidelines for governance or that American Law is the embodiment of all that is just doesn't mean I'm any less American than you. It means I dissent. It means that I don't just prostrate myself before the ruling and wealthy classes. I do believe in individual freedom and liberty, its just that my definition of those is different than yours: in that I believe you should have liberty to the point until it treads on the rights and liberties of others. And I believe in human rights and equality. I have hopes for the human race and believe it can do better than it has; aka idealism. I might be dangerous to your notion of what this country is supposed to be, but you, and folks like you, are dangerous to the future of the human race, this planet and all life on it.

Go read your Bible, work your job for thirty years, buy stuff, get married, have kids, buy a home, retire, die and pray to God that there is an afterlife so that you didn't just waste the only time you have, out of all eternity, living as a little cog. Meanwhile I'll be doing something more meaningful and worthwhile with my existence, just in case there isn't something more.

 

[AllieBaba]

If nothing else, you've exposed yourself quite well in that response. You're a Marxist, you're not an American, you don't believe in the American Constitution or American Law. You want to subvert and overturn the Constitution and insert in it's place what you deem to be morally correct. You don't believe in individual liberty or individual freedom. Maybe someday you'll grow up and learn that you cannot legislate fairness and understand what the real world is about instead of sticking your head firmly in the sand and pretending that the world is something that it is not and never will be. If anything else comes out of this, I hope people are able to read your thoughts and what those like you are thinking and realize and understand how dangerous you are to this country.

And you've exposed yourself as a nationalist and a slave to corporations, propaganda, and religious indoctrination. I admit that I relate to some of the things Marx wrote, but I was born in Denver so I am an American. I'm not a Marxist or a socialist or a communist, but I am an American. I'm me. That's what the US is all about - tolerance and individuality. Just because I don't believe the Constitution is the end all be all of ethical guidelines for governance or that American Law is the embodiment of all that is just doesn't mean I'm any less American than you. It means I dissent. It means that I don't just prostrate myself before the ruling and wealthy classes. I do believe in individual freedom and liberty, its just that my definition of those is different than yours: in that I believe you should have liberty to the point until it treads on the rights and liberties of others. And I believe in human rights and equality. I have hopes for the human race and believe it can do better than it has; aka idealism. I might be dangerous to your notion of what this country is supposed to be, but you, and folks like you, are dangerous to the future of the human race, this planet and all life on it.

Go read your Bible, work your job for thirty years, buy stuff, get married, have kids, buy a home, retire, die and pray to God that there is an afterlife so that you didn't just waste the only time you have, out of all eternity, living as a little cog. Meanwhile I'll be doing something more meaningful and worthwhile with my existence, just in case there isn't something more.

What exactly do you do that's more meaningful than trying to be a good person, raise a decent family, and contribute to society?

All I've ever seen of you consists of bitching and moaning. Is that really more meaningful than the honorable life you describe above?

 

[CrimsonWhite]

And not just Christians.

Can you answer any or all of these questions for non-believers? And be prepared if you answer, to defend your answer. Who knows? Maybe you'll just make a believer outta somebody.

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? So then why would I choose to believe? How do I choose to believe?

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

Why do you believe?

Explain faith.

Faith cannot be explained. It can only be experienced. So your question is moot.

 

[Againsheila]

If nothing else, you've exposed yourself quite well in that response. You're a Marxist, you're not an American, you don't believe in the American Constitution or American Law. You want to subvert and overturn the Constitution and insert in it's place what you deem to be morally correct. You don't believe in individual liberty or individual freedom. Maybe someday you'll grow up and learn that you cannot legislate fairness and understand what the real world is about instead of sticking your head firmly in the sand and pretending that the world is something that it is not and never will be. If anything else comes out of this, I hope people are able to read your thoughts and what those like you are thinking and realize and understand how dangerous you are to this country.

And you've exposed yourself as a nationalist and a slave to corporations, propaganda, and religious indoctrination. I admit that I relate to some of the things Marx wrote, but I was born in Denver so I am an American. I'm not a Marxist or a socialist or a communist, but I am an American. I'm me. That's what the US is all about - tolerance and individuality. Just because I don't believe the Constitution is the end all be all of ethical guidelines for governance or that American Law is the embodiment of all that is just doesn't mean I'm any less American than you. It means I dissent. It means that I don't just prostrate myself before the ruling and wealthy classes. I do believe in individual freedom and liberty, its just that my definition of those is different than yours: in that I believe you should have liberty to the point until it treads on the rights and liberties of others. And I believe in human rights and equality. I have hopes for the human race and believe it can do better than it has; aka idealism. I might be dangerous to your notion of what this country is supposed to be, but you, and folks like you, are dangerous to the future of the human race, this planet and all life on it.

Go read your Bible, work your job for thirty years, buy stuff, get married, have kids, buy a home, retire, die and pray to God that there is an afterlife so that you didn't just waste the only time you have, out of all eternity, living as a little cog. Meanwhile I'll be doing something more meaningful and worthwhile with my existence, just in case there isn't something more.

you really believe there is something more meaningful in life that raising a family? Even if you don't believe in an afterlife, leaving children behind is a way for you to leave an impact on the world forever.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Faith cannot be explained. It can only be experienced. So your question is moot.

Actually, it isn't. You just helped explain faith.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

you really believe there is something more meaningful in life that raising a family? Even if you don't believe in an afterlife, leaving children behind is a way for you to leave an impact on the world forever.

Well, that's not exactly what I meant. I do think having children, especially because I don't believe in an afterlife, is way to live on past death. I also don't think raising a family is meaningless. I didn't put it very clearly I guess. What I meant was that following what, as Americans, we've been taught is the best way to live: graduate high school, join the military or go to college or both, starting a career, getting married, buying a home, raising kids, buying a nice car, owning stuff, taking a two week vacation a year (if your lucky), investing in your 401k, eventually retiring, and then dying just seems like a way for corporations to keep you at work for them and buying the stuff they produce and sell. I know that's an oversimplification. But not by much.

What about traveling? What about doing something fun other than hobbies or going to Disneyworld or on a cruise? What about challenging yourself by climbing a mountain, or hiking the Appalachian Trail, or sailing across the Pacific, or something like that? Writing a book, playing music in a rock band, living out of a backpack, anything other than being a worker and a consumer? Why not question one's faith? Why not look beyond the surface that is presented to us by tradition, tv, public school, teachings of the Church, and society? Is my above example really what makes a meaningful life? My family is full of activists. My brother smuggled clothing and books into Cuba. My parents and uncles were attacked by police in the 60s for protesting the Vietnam War and marching for civil rights. I served in the Marine Corps, traveled a lot of places, helped out at a church that served free meals, volunteer at the VA hospital, hiked the from Mexico to Lake Tahoe, climbed big mountain faces, I've taught, I read voraciously, and I am planning a hike on the Via Alpina in Europe and two months of rock climbing in Joshua Tree. I was taught that just working a job and raising a family is only part of what life is all about.

When I die I don't want to look back and think, well, I worked until I retired and raised a family. I owned a home. I drove a nice car. I want to look back and think, geez I raised an educated, worldly, and wise family, I loved my wife with all of my heart, I traveled the world, I challenged myself and overcame and did things I never imagined I could ever do, I contributed to my community, I stood up for what I believed was moral and good, I questioned authority, I resisted social pressures, I didn't blindly believe in anything, and I challenged the establishment. I might never get to retire and I might never make a lot of money, but I want to leave behind a lasting legacy. I might die tomorrow and if all I was working for was to retire and buy stuff, that doesn't seem very meaningful.