Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

I'm the Religious Left!Follow

#52REDACTED, Posted: Apr 01 2009 at 1:00 PM, Rating: Unrated, (Expand Post) I asked first; and the question is quite simple.
#53 Apr 01 2009 at 1:14 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
hangtennow wrote:


Do you believe in God?


Old bearded chap in the sky who looks after heaven and watches over us??

No. I'm and athiest.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#54 Apr 01 2009 at 1:24 PM Rating: Default
Pauly,

That's all you had to say.

p.s. I don't think anyone believes in an old white bearded guy living in the clouds pulling our strings.
#55 Apr 01 2009 at 1:31 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
hangtennow wrote:


That's all you had to say.


I was gonna call you a gullible **** as well, but I'm in a really good space today and didn't want anything to harsh on my mellow.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#56 Apr 01 2009 at 9:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
Jesus hates people who wont commit.


You can tell by the way he looks at you all nailed to the cross & bleeding.

The guilt is so thick, it's palpable.

____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#57 Apr 06 2009 at 2:53 AM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Ethnic minorities have all majority traditionally voted left where a notable percentage is also religious.

Being religious doesn't equate being conservative. Sadly enough, there are so many people who will vote Republican based off of their religion. Then again, people vote for a whole lot worse of reasons.
#58 Apr 06 2009 at 3:25 AM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Ethnic minorities have all majority traditionally voted left where a notable percentage is also religious.

They vote left primarily on the basis of economic policy: raising minimum wage, progressive taxes, yadda yadda. However, on social policy ehtnic minorities tend to lean conservative.
#59 Apr 06 2009 at 3:30 AM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
Allegory wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Ethnic minorities have all majority traditionally voted left where a notable percentage is also religious.

They vote left primarily on the basis of economic policy: raising minimum wage, progressive taxes, yadda yadda. However, on social policy ehtnic minorities tend to lean conservative.

You know, it might be interesting if you could vote TWO separate governments in. One solely responsible for economic management, and one solely responsible for social issue management.

It's just a hypothetical, since in practise the two fields impact each other greatly.

But there IS that mess in reality for a lot of voters when they are economic conservatives and social liberals or vice versa.
#60 Apr 06 2009 at 3:36 AM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Allegory wrote:
They vote left primarily on the basis of economic policy: raising minimum wage, progressive taxes, yadda yadda. However, on social policy ehtnic minorities tend to lean conservative.


That was my point. It shouldn't be a surprise to hear religious people voting democratic. The way the parties are split now, you're giving up something for something else, unless you are a "traditional".

That is why I'm an independent that is more likely to vote left than right, but not bound to the left. You should vote for what makes the most sense to you (assuming you have any sense >.>) as opposed to some random package deal.

The problem is, people will continuously vote for the lesser of the two evils, rendering it literally impossible for an Independent with mixture beliefs of ever winning certain political positions.
#61 Apr 06 2009 at 3:37 AM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
One solely responsible for economic management, and one solely responsible for social issue management.

Fighting over jurisdiction would kill it.
Airpyanfar wrote:
But there IS that mess in reality for a lot of voters when they are economic conservatives and social liberals or vice versa.

This is the direction I, and many others I know, would really like to see Republicans move.
#62 Apr 06 2009 at 4:08 AM Rating: Good
**
505 posts
It's easy to make fun of the religious, it's also just as easy to make fun of Athiest that suffer the delusion that science has any answers concerning the ultimate origin of our Universe. Science utterly breaks down pre-singularity. Actually it breaks down before that. Singularity is just a place holder word for "we have no ******* clue".


With our limited comprehension it breaks down to either the Universe magically appeared out of nothing ( no more scientific than a "God" created it) or it always existed ( again, no more scientific than an immortal "God"). There are most probably other options, but we're far too stupid to think of them.


At this point discussion leaves the realm of science ( though still hiding behind scientific terms) and becomes nothing more than word play. String theory and Multiverses and such merely add a layer of abstraction. They still fail to answer ultimate origin. After these have been excluded, the most common cop out is the "pre-singularity there was no matter, energy or time, so nothing never existed".


They then may go on to "explain" that therefore, since there was never nothing, once there was something, that was everything and always. That still boils down to either something from nothing, or an infinite universe or some ******** amalgamation of both. Sorry, that's word play, not science and not an answer.


I'm not exactly religiously minded, but worshiping at the alter of the all knowing, infallible, all mighty science is just as silly.
____________________________
Never regret.To regret is to assume.
#63 Apr 06 2009 at 4:16 AM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
CoalHeart wrote:
I'm not exactly religiously minded, but worshiping at the alter of the all knowing, infallible, all mighty science is just as silly.

Even sillier than your ridiculous straw man?!

Edited, Apr 6th 2009 7:19am by Allegory
#64 Apr 06 2009 at 4:38 AM Rating: Good
***
3,909 posts
CoalHeart wrote:
I'm not exactly religiously minded, but worshiping at the alter of the all knowing, infallible, all mighty science is just as silly.


I'll admit that worshipping science as infallible is silly, but I'll also point out that anyone who thinks science is infallible is missing the fundamental point of science. Any scientific principle can be proven wrong at any time by the introduction of conflicting evidence.

Aripyanfar wrote:
You know, it might be interesting if you could vote TWO separate governments in. One solely responsible for economic management, and one solely responsible for social issue management.


The issue with that is that the economic government would produce money, and the social issues government would then use that money on economically frivolous social programs. The economic government would naturally take action against social policies it felt were a waste of money and the social issues government would naturally take action against economic policies it feels are heartless.

Collegiality in government is a good idea, but there's no need to take it that far. It'd be more divisive than productive.
#65 Apr 06 2009 at 4:39 AM Rating: Good
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
With our limited comprehension it breaks down to either the Universe magically appeared out of nothing ( no more scientific than a "God" created it) or it always existed ( again, no more scientific than an immortal "God"). There are most probably other options, but we're far too stupid to think of them.


That's what transcendental phenomenology is for.

Quote:
I'm not exactly religiously minded, but worshiping at the alter of the all knowing, infallible, all mighty science is just as silly.


Science ideally is a question of justice in regards to claims that you make. Your cognitive capacities grant you certain rights in regards to the world, and deny you other ones. Science cannot legitimately travel beyond these rights, or it fails to be science.

Edited, Apr 6th 2009 8:43am by Pensive
#66 Apr 06 2009 at 4:56 AM Rating: Good
**
505 posts
Pensive wrote:

That's what transcendental phenomenology is for.



I suppose I should thank you ( I honestly wasn't aware of this field). I've read everything Sagan ever wrote and force my way through Hawking and other "not funny even when they try" folks, but never really looked outside that approach.


For now though, I'm cursing you and Google. Now 'll never get any sleep.
____________________________
Never regret.To regret is to assume.
#67 Apr 06 2009 at 5:08 AM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
I don't believe that science can be separated from a rigorous account of phenomena. You need it to justify the existence of the science in the first place.

Not that I'd claim to have a rigorous understanding... some of that sh*t is really hard, though it might be easier if I could read enough german to do it that way.

***

Huh, I've never googled that before, but I'm kind of surprised that it's all about Husserl and nothing about Kant.

Edited, Apr 6th 2009 9:15am by Pensive
#68 Apr 06 2009 at 5:16 AM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
CoalHeart wrote:
worshiping at the alter of the all knowing, infallible, all mighty science is just as silly.


I've been arguing this point forever... no one seems to believe it's true.. oh well, good to see another person on the side of right.
#69 Apr 06 2009 at 5:26 AM Rating: Good
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
I've been arguing this point forever... no one seems to believe it's true.. oh well, good to see another person on the side of right.


That's because people who worship science as infallible are held in contempt by legitimate scientists...
#70 Apr 06 2009 at 5:28 AM Rating: Good
CoalHeart wrote:
worshiping at the alter of the all knowing, infallible, all mighty science is just as silly.


I'd rather be silly than ******* insane.
#71 Apr 06 2009 at 5:36 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
CoalHeart wrote:
worshiping at the alter of the all knowing, infallible, all mighty science is just as silly.

Simply stating that one worships science in the same vein as one worships their god is silly.

Scientists will be the first to tell you that science is far from infallible.

Science and religion are not exclusive of one another.






Edited, Apr 6th 2009 3:37pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#72 Apr 06 2009 at 5:37 AM Rating: Good
**
505 posts
Pensive wrote:

Huh, I've never googled that before, but I'm kind of surprised that it's all about Husserl and nothing about Kant.



Heh, heh, Didn't mean to imply that you did, was just relating that's what I'm doing. My communication skills are rather sad. Oh well, at least my Mom thinks I'm cute.

EDIT: Had "Moms".. plural.. wth?

Edited, Apr 6th 2009 9:39am by CoalHeart
____________________________
Never regret.To regret is to assume.
#73 Apr 06 2009 at 5:42 AM Rating: Good
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Elinda wrote:

Science and religion are not exclusive of one another.



I've been arguing this point too along with the other point... This is starting to scare me...
#74 Apr 06 2009 at 5:46 AM Rating: Good
**
505 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Elinda wrote:

Science and religion are not exclusive of one another.



I've been arguing this point too along with the other point... This is starting to scare me...




Resistance is futile...


Note: I've been up for 2 days...everything is funny right now.
____________________________
Never regret.To regret is to assume.
#75 Apr 06 2009 at 5:46 AM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
No what I mean is that if I was going to have to pick one guy to call integral to the development of the field, it would be Kant. It's a way of talking about knowledge and certainty that is absolutely justified and provable because the process recognizes its own limits and simply seeks to gain knowledge by examining the conditions of necessity of human consciousness.

Well.. it excites me anyway.

Just surprises me that he doesn't pop up in googling the field.
#76 Apr 06 2009 at 5:57 AM Rating: Good
**
505 posts
Pensive wrote:
No what I mean is that if I was going to have to pick one guy to call integral to the development of the field, it would be Kant. It's a way of talking about knowledge and certainty that is absolutely justified and provable because the process recognizes its own limits and simply seeks to gain knowledge by examining the conditions of necessity of human consciousness.



What can and can not be proven.. by Dr. Kant. Just don't sound right...

kk, getting silly.. going to bed.
____________________________
Never regret.To regret is to assume.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 213 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (213)