How Much of a Theist or Atheist are You?

[james bond]

That's funny you say that

Why American Sports Are Socialist

See what I mean? The liberal masters, i.e. the rich want you to think politics should be in everything including sports and consumerism. I can show you an article between Nike (liberal) vs Under Armour (conservative) because UA's CEO spouted something.

My thinking is ignore all that BS. If you like Nike products and their shoes look good and fit you well, then buy it. Don't buy or not buy products because of political beliefs. Also, people with a business shouldn't mix business with politics or religion.

But even if they do, what harm is there? If the Chic-fil-a CEO advertises their policy that all their stores will close on Sundays so that their employees can attend church or just have a day off on what he believes is God's Sabbath Day, how does that harm anybody? If Tom and Jerry's choose to put a float in a Gay Nazi parade, how does that harm anybody? Am I going to refuse to buy something in either place because of their religious or political stances? No.

Should I refuse to enjoy "Sister Act", a movie I do enjoy, just because Whoopi Goldberg is politically offensive to me? Or "Moonstruck" (Cher) or "Shall We Dance" (Susan Sarandon.)

I do confess when Target refused to allow the Salvation Army Santa and kettle in front of their stores and Wal-mart continued that tradition, I chose to go to Wal-mart instead of Target. But that was to reward Wal-mart for what I see as a wonderful tradition, not to punish Target. If what I needed was at Target and not at Wal-mart, I would go to Target.

From one of my favorite all-time movies: "Chocolat":

I think you mean Ben & Jerry's.

To an extent, you're both correct. Mixing political or religious views with business is probably bad business practice, but that doesn't mean people should be stopped from doing so if that's their choice. Freedom means the freedom to be stupid, if that's what floats one's boat.

SHOULD you avoid things simply because one aspect of it is offensive to you? Not if you don't want to. By the same token, there's no "should" about ignoring those aspects, either, if you don't want to.

I stop doing business with companies when their offensive behavior becomes too much for me to ignore. Maybe it's cumulative, or maybe it's just one big thing they do that's too much for me. Depends entirely on the business and what they do. I won't eat Ben & Jerry's or buy Starbucks because their self-righteous proselytizing through their products has just accumulated too much, to the point where it completely overshadows their actual product. I won't watch a movie with Jake Gyllenhaal or Alec Baldwin in it, to name two, because their behavior outside of their acting has become so pervasive in my consciousness that I simply can't forget who they are and see them as their characters any more. I think it's a serious mistake for actors to make the public too aware of them as regular people, because their careers depend on their ability to make us believe in them as their characters, at least for the length of time that the show lasts.

On the other hand, there are companies who do things I don't care for, but I still do business with, because they haven't shoved it into my face sufficiently to make me stay away. There are actors whose personal politics I find distasteful, but they're smart enough to mostly keep it personal and allow to largely ignore it.

Won't shop at Target, because I don't like shopping somewhere I don't feel comfortable using the bathroom.

>>C1200: Mixing political or religious views with business is probably bad business practice, but that doesn't mean people should be stopped from doing so if that's their choice. Freedom means the freedom to be stupid, if that's what floats one's boat.<<

Yes, this was one of the unwritten rules in all society, but today the liberal elite want to politicize everything. I think this brand of politics is what we are dealing with today. We are learning more about people who run our corporations and the way the founder of the company was. Those beliefs form the foundation of a company and are still in place.

That said, I'll try and leave the politics out in my personal decisions. However, when comparing two competing products from different companies, then it may factor in a decision such as Coke or Pepsi unless you're a Sealybobo. What a nut jobber that guy turned out to be.

>>Won't shop at Target, because I don't like shopping somewhere I don't feel comfortable using the bathroom.<<

Yeah, that was a really BAD decision since it got publicized so much. I cut down shopping at my local Target (not megastore) before that because they didn't have enough of basic products such as Tide when they put on a sale. It usually ran out and you ended up buying another brand at regular price. I guess libs get used to it as normal and "accept" the rain check.

.

I guess libs get used to it as normal and "accept" the rain check.

... and "accept" the rain check.


"We don't need a liberal person in there, a Democrat, Jones. I've looked at his record. It's terrible on crime. It's terrible on the border. It's terrible on military," Trump said. "I can tell you for a fact we do not need somebody who's going to be bad on crime, bad on borders, bad for the military, bad for the Second Amendment."

But the White House signaled on Monday that its position was shifting away from the mainstream of Republican leaders, as White House counselor Kellyanne Conway signaled the need for Moore's vote on tax reform was more important in the administration's calculation than the sexual misconduct allegations leveled against him.


your a sad case bond, the example above is the reality of blind obedience ... actually believing what you are being told - to believe.

I can think for myself, thank you. It's really you who has blind obedience -- actually believing what you are being told - to believe. Isn't that what Communism all about?

Next thing you'll be telling me is, "I rather be red than dead."

 

[james bond]

As for evolution vs creation, I read this article today where the life expectancy rate has gone down. Shouldn't it be going up as humans evolve? As usual, the evolution folks say it's drug abuse that is causing early deaths. I would think drug use would be normal for evolutionists. They would take the drugs that would make them live longer, but they're not. Are there such pills? What's the real explanation? It could be that evolution doesn't happen.

Life expectancy in US down for second year in a row as opioid crisis deepens

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Shouldn't it be going up as humans evolve?

Not at all. In fact, if left purely to natural selection, it should decrease. As far as selfish genes are concerned, humans past viable breeding age are a drain on the local resources.

"As usual, the evolution folks say it's drug abuse that is causing early deaths."

As usual? As compared to what historical examples? What in the world are you talking about? The fact that the opioid crisis is lowering life expectancy is not an "opinion" or a "gut feeling", it's a mathematical exercise.

Drug use is now "normal' for everyone, because people like longer lives. Even religious people. That's why they take antibiotics, too. Opioid "use" isn't the problem, it's opioid "abuse" that is the problem.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

As for evolution vs creation ...

no such quandary exists unless it happens an individual has knowingly entrapped themselves into believing a 4th century, 10,000 pg. forged document is not a work of fiction.

 

[james bond]

Shouldn't it be going up as humans evolve?

Not at all. In fact, if left purely to natural selection, it should decrease. As far as selfish genes are concerned, humans past viable breeding age are a drain on the local resources.

"As usual, the evolution folks say it's drug abuse that is causing early deaths."

As usual? As compared to what historical examples? What in the world are you talking about? The fact that the opioid crisis is lowering life expectancy is not an "opinion" or a "gut feeling", it's a mathematical exercise.

Drug use is now "normal' for everyone, because people like longer lives. Even religious people. That's why they take antibiotics, too. Opioid "use" isn't the problem, it's opioid "abuse" that is the problem.

>>FFI: Not at all. In fact, if left purely to natural selection, it should decrease.<<

Many would disagree with you. How do you explain a decrease due to natural selection?

Live Longer With Evolution? Evidence May Lie in Fruit Flies
Live Longer With Evolution? Evidence May Lie in Fruit Flies

Primal diet
Primal Wisdom: Natural Selection Favors Both Strength and Longevity in Humans

>>As usual? As compared to what historical examples? What in the world are you talking about? The fact that the opioid crisis is lowering life expectancy is not an "opinion" or a "gut feeling", it's a mathematical exercise.<<

Sheesh. I thought you would know more since you subscribe to evolution. Even this creationist knows that drug use and ODing started to occur in the 1800s. This is when commercialization and wide availability of certain drugs came into existence. For example, Coca Cola contained cocaine for 10 cents per bottle. Morphine and cocaine and other opiates were mass produced and sold and people became addicted (similar to today's opioids for pain relief; it's the #1 prescribed medicine).

>>Drug use is now "normal' for everyone, because people like longer lives. Even religious people. That's why they take antibiotics, too. Opioid "use" isn't the problem, it's opioid "abuse" that is the problem.<<

Meh. It's the wide availability of opioids that is the problem just like in the 1800s. People get addicted and then comes the abuse. What do you mean drug use is normal for everyone because they want to live longer lives? What drug helps one to live longer lives? Medical marijuana?

"The rise in overdose deaths is largely due to the proliferation of illicitly made fentanyl, a highly potent synthetic opioid, and fentanyl analogs."

I didn't expect you to know because DJT told us .

President Donald J. Trump is Taking Action on Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis | The White House

 

[james bond]

Some liberals and atheists want to make all drugs legal including today's illegal drugs because they believe the illegality causes the problem. This is playing into the "devil's" hand so to speak. It would make all illegal drugs now more widely available. We learned the availability and easy access that causes drug abuse in the 1800s. I would favor legalizing marijuana if alcohol was made more illegal. Alcohol is much more addictive and causes increased social problems.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Many would disagree with you. How do you explain a decrease due to natural selection?

Not a single scientist would disagree with me. To clarify, the human lifespan would not necessarily decrease due to natural selection, but due to the lack of scientific medicine. Natural pressures, like disease, would take our lifespans down to what they were before scientific medicine.

What do you mean drug use is normal for everyone because they want to live longer lives?

Antibiotics are drugs. Insulin is a drug. Drug use is normal for everyone.

What makes you think I did not know about fentanyl? This isnt church, you don't get to just make shit up and get a pass.

 

[james bond]

Many would disagree with you. How do you explain a decrease due to natural selection?

Not a single scientist would disagree with me. To clarify, the human lifespan would not necessarily decrease due to natural selection, but due to the lack of scientific medicine. Natural pressures, like disease, would take our lifespans down to what they were before scientific medicine.

What do you mean drug use is normal for everyone because they want to live longer lives?

Antibiotics are drugs. Insulin is a drug. Drug use is normal for everyone.

What makes you think I did not know about fentanyl? This isnt church, you don't get to just make shit up and get a pass.

I didn't say you didn't know, but asked what you did know about fentanyl and other opioids? Have you used them? No judgment.

 

[james bond]

Antibiotics are drugs. Insulin is a drug. Drug use is normal for everyone.

Normal is judgmental. Let me replace it with common. I guess we do not hear statements like drug use is normal because drug use usually refers to illegal drugs. Aspirin use is common. Taking antibiotics is common. Using insulin isn't that common.

I would guess that most people do not take drugs to live longer. I would think that diet and exercise are ways to longevity and not relying on drugs. Maybe vitamin or other supplements could be helpful.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Many would disagree with you. How do you explain a decrease due to natural selection?

Not a single scientist would disagree with me. To clarify, the human lifespan would not necessarily decrease due to natural selection, but due to the lack of scientific medicine. Natural pressures, like disease, would take our lifespans down to what they were before scientific medicine.

What do you mean drug use is normal for everyone because they want to live longer lives?

Antibiotics are drugs. Insulin is a drug. Drug use is normal for everyone.

What makes you think I did not know about fentanyl? This isnt church, you don't get to just make shit up and get a pass.

I didn't say you didn't know, but asked what you did know about fentanyl and other opioids? Have you used them? No judgment.

I have been prescribed opioids, yes. And I understand that fentanyl is a very deadly chemical in low doses, and it is used to provode a "kick" to opioid black market drugs. Why? What's your point?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Normal is judgmental.

Not in this case, it most certainly is not. In this case, it simply refers to the fact that it's an accepted and even demanded part of everyone's life, much as it is normal to get a driver's license, or normal to wear shoes. These things are more than "common"....one is usually expected to do these things. Just as you would be expected to medicate your sick child, lest he is rightfully taken from you.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Using insulin isn't that common.

Among diabetics? It is. We used to turn to faith healers and prayer...boy that failed spectacularly. Now we turn to scientifoc medicine, and the results have been spectacular.

 

[james bond]

Many would disagree with you. How do you explain a decrease due to natural selection?

Not a single scientist would disagree with me. To clarify, the human lifespan would not necessarily decrease due to natural selection, but due to the lack of scientific medicine. Natural pressures, like disease, would take our lifespans down to what they were before scientific medicine.

What do you mean drug use is normal for everyone because they want to live longer lives?

Antibiotics are drugs. Insulin is a drug. Drug use is normal for everyone.

What makes you think I did not know about fentanyl? This isnt church, you don't get to just make shit up and get a pass.

I didn't say you didn't know, but asked what you did know about fentanyl and other opioids? Have you used them? No judgment.

I have been prescribed opioids, yes. And I understand that fentanyl is a very deadly chemical in low doses, and it is used to provode a "kick" to opioid black market drugs. Why? What's your point?

I used to be an illegal drug user (weed, bennies, hash, coke, LSD, mescaline, opium, but no more). Only do medical marijuana and Aleve ha ha. Strange, but now I have trouble understanding why people use recreational drugs. Anyway, fentanyl and other opioids are somewhat in-between hard drugs and recreational drugs because they're prescribed for pain. So, what kind of high do they provide?

 

[Cecilie1200]

.

As for evolution vs creation ...

no such quandary exists unless it happens an individual has knowingly entrapped themselves into believing a 4th century, 10,000 pg. forged document is not a work of fiction.

Creation doesn't create a quandary with evolution. Evolutionists create a quandary with creation by trying to make it do what it cannot, and free them from any moral responsibility or requirements to civilization.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

As for evolution vs creation ...

no such quandary exists unless it happens an individual has knowingly entrapped themselves into believing a 4th century, 10,000 pg. forged document is not a work of fiction.

Creation doesn't create a quandary with evolution. Evolutionists create a quandary with creation by trying to make it do what it cannot, and free them from any moral responsibility or requirements to civilization.

.

Creation doesn't create a quandary with evolution. Evolutionists create a quandary with creation by trying to make it do what it cannot, and free them from any moral responsibility or requirements to civilization.

Evolutionists create a quandary with creation by trying to make it do what it cannot ...

I'm unsure you have stated just what that is ... "what it cannot"



... and free them from any moral responsibility or requirements to civilization.

I agree, evolution is required to explain its progression over time - "from any moral responsibility or requirements to civilization" ...

evolution is dictated by the metaphysical axioms that span the universe unrestrained by any physical attributes as I just attributed in an adjacent thread -

... simply stating a belief is a metaphysical phenomena that is from a source not related to a particular celestial body or to any physical attribute but to a source that spans the entire universe embedded as a boundless thought process of each being that is responsible for its conclusion.

the metaphysical axioms are responsible for life on earth and the physiology created by it for a physical existence.

surly there must be an Almighty in the sense of there being a guidance from one stage to another in the progression of the genome of life reflected by the evolutionary changes that occur over time.


The Triumph of Good vs Evil, The Apex of Knowledge are metaphysical attributes necessary to be adhered to for life's progression to continue on the course set out by the emergence of the first life templet that began on earth.

at any rate, the 4th century forged document or any of the desert religions have failed in all respects for any proposition to be a source for any consideration whatsoever for any subject matter, for authenticity.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Many would disagree with you. How do you explain a decrease due to natural selection?

Not a single scientist would disagree with me. To clarify, the human lifespan would not necessarily decrease due to natural selection, but due to the lack of scientific medicine. Natural pressures, like disease, would take our lifespans down to what they were before scientific medicine.

What do you mean drug use is normal for everyone because they want to live longer lives?

Antibiotics are drugs. Insulin is a drug. Drug use is normal for everyone.

What makes you think I did not know about fentanyl? This isnt church, you don't get to just make shit up and get a pass.

I didn't say you didn't know, but asked what you did know about fentanyl and other opioids? Have you used them? No judgment.

I have been prescribed opioids, yes. And I understand that fentanyl is a very deadly chemical in low doses, and it is used to provode a "kick" to opioid black market drugs. Why? What's your point?

I used to be an illegal drug user (weed, bennies, hash, coke, LSD, mescaline, opium, but no more). Only do medical marijuana and Aleve ha ha. Strange, but now I have trouble understanding why people use recreational drugs. Anyway, fentanyl and other opioids are somewhat in-between hard drugs and recreational drugs because they're prescribed for pain. So, what kind of high do they provide?

To the addict, not much. Once an person is addicted to opioids, the opioids are more used to get rid of the feeling of every cell in their body screaming out for opioids. Liken it to your urge to breath when underwater for too long, or to eat when you are starving.

 

[james bond]

Many would disagree with you. How do you explain a decrease due to natural selection?

Not a single scientist would disagree with me. To clarify, the human lifespan would not necessarily decrease due to natural selection, but due to the lack of scientific medicine. Natural pressures, like disease, would take our lifespans down to what they were before scientific medicine.

What do you mean drug use is normal for everyone because they want to live longer lives?

Antibiotics are drugs. Insulin is a drug. Drug use is normal for everyone.

What makes you think I did not know about fentanyl? This isnt church, you don't get to just make shit up and get a pass.

I didn't say you didn't know, but asked what you did know about fentanyl and other opioids? Have you used them? No judgment.

I have been prescribed opioids, yes. And I understand that fentanyl is a very deadly chemical in low doses, and it is used to provode a "kick" to opioid black market drugs. Why? What's your point?

I used to be an illegal drug user (weed, bennies, hash, coke, LSD, mescaline, opium, but no more). Only do medical marijuana and Aleve ha ha. Strange, but now I have trouble understanding why people use recreational drugs. Anyway, fentanyl and other opioids are somewhat in-between hard drugs and recreational drugs because they're prescribed for pain. So, what kind of high do they provide?

To the addict, not much. Once an person is addicted to opioids, the opioids are more used to get rid of the feeling of every cell in their body screaming out for opioids. Liken it to your urge to breath when underwater for too long, or to eat when you are starving.

It sounds highly physically addictive without much pleasure.

 

[james bond]

.

As for evolution vs creation ...

no such quandary exists unless it happens an individual has knowingly entrapped themselves into believing a 4th century, 10,000 pg. forged document is not a work of fiction.

Creation doesn't create a quandary with evolution. Evolutionists create a quandary with creation by trying to make it do what it cannot, and free them from any moral responsibility or requirements to civilization.

.

Creation doesn't create a quandary with evolution. Evolutionists create a quandary with creation by trying to make it do what it cannot, and free them from any moral responsibility or requirements to civilization.

Evolutionists create a quandary with creation by trying to make it do what it cannot ...

I'm unsure you have stated just what that is ... "what it cannot"



... and free them from any moral responsibility or requirements to civilization.

I agree, evolution is required to explain its progression over time - "from any moral responsibility or requirements to civilization" ...

evolution is dictated by the metaphysical axioms that span the universe unrestrained by any physical attributes as I just attributed in an adjacent thread -

... simply stating a belief is a metaphysical phenomena that is from a source not related to a particular celestial body or to any physical attribute but to a source that spans the entire universe embedded as a boundless thought process of each being that is responsible for its conclusion.

the metaphysical axioms are responsible for life on earth and the physiology created by it for a physical existence.

surly there must be an Almighty in the sense of there being a guidance from one stage to another in the progression of the genome of life reflected by the evolutionary changes that occur over time.


The Triumph of Good vs Evil, The Apex of Knowledge are metaphysical attributes necessary to be adhered to for life's progression to continue on the course set out by the emergence of the first life templet that began on earth.

at any rate, the 4th century forged document or any of the desert religions have failed in all respects for any proposition to be a source for any consideration whatsoever for any subject matter, for authenticity.

>>C: Creation doesn't create a quandary with evolution. Evolutionists create a quandary with creation by trying to make it do what it cannot, and free them from any moral responsibility or requirements to civilization.<<

Give it up BW. Cecilie1200 hit the nail on the head.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

Evolutionists create a quandary with creation by trying to make it do what it cannot, and free them from any moral responsibility or requirements to civilization.

Give it up BW. Cecilie1200 hit the nail on the head.

what it cannot ...

BW: I'm unsure you have stated just what that is ... "what it cannot"

I agree, evolution is required to explain its progression over time - "from any moral responsibility or requirements to civilization" ... evolution is dictated by the metaphysical axioms that span the universe unrestrained by any physical attributes ... surly there must be an Almighty in the sense of there being a guidance from one stage to another in the progression of the genome of life reflected by the evolutionary changes that occur over time.

I gave a response bond if you have nothing more than pseudo ad hominem quips I suggest you spend more time reading your book of forgeries, better passing your empty time than bothering others.

 

[james bond]

.

Evolutionists create a quandary with creation by trying to make it do what it cannot, and free them from any moral responsibility or requirements to civilization.

Give it up BW. Cecilie1200 hit the nail on the head.

what it cannot ...

BW: I'm unsure you have stated just what that is ... "what it cannot"

I agree, evolution is required to explain its progression over time - "from any moral responsibility or requirements to civilization" ... evolution is dictated by the metaphysical axioms that span the universe unrestrained by any physical attributes ... surly there must be an Almighty in the sense of there being a guidance from one stage to another in the progression of the genome of life reflected by the evolutionary changes that occur over time.

I gave a response bond if you have nothing more than pseudo ad hominem quips I suggest you spend more time reading your book of forgeries, better passing your empty time than bothering others.

I'll continue reading the good book as well millions of others and many more millions in the future. Are you going to continue reading the book of scientific lies and racism known as Charles Darwin's Origin of Species and The Descent of Man? I doubt many today will read those books. They are quite obsolete.