BF2S Forums Search

Everything's Amazing, Nobody's Happy

Circuit City is the parent company of my employer, but I am not concerned. We are the only profitable branch of CC, and are likely to be sold off to another company as they liquidate their assets. Most likely, my job is safe. However, I am going to California early next year for a new job, so the point is moot anyway.

Reciprocity wrote:

Drakef wrote:

The creation of radical new ideologies and the uncertain economic conditions that permitted these ideologies to flourish.

I don't think Hitler invented anti-semitism but a scewed economy did help.


The actual cause was Henry Tandey.  Son of a bitch.

Anti-Semitism is not among the ideologies that I meant, and neither is that one in particular important to the cause of the Second World War.

The ones I refer to are communism and fascism. More particularly, the latter one. Overall, it was increasingly militaristic governments that were given more power by citizens desperate from the economic crisis. The electorate would not have turned to Hitler (and to a lesser degree, Mussolini, Lenin, and the various military governments of Japan) had there not have been desperation. With nothing to lose, the more radical of solutions become evident as the most likely of solutions. Make no mistake, from the major dictatorial governments to the minor powers, most of the belligerent nations were well supported by the people.

Naturally, the Treaty of Versailles not only contributed to the poor economy, primarily in Germany, and it furthered the blame in Germany upon not only other nations, but also on traditional elements of German government.

The creation of radical new ideologies and the uncertain economic conditions that permitted these ideologies to flourish.

CC-Marley wrote:

Never understood why most pro-abortion people are against the death penalty.

And vice versa. You know it's far more complicated than that.

I find it morally abhorrent to willingly bring into this world a child that is to suffer from a something like Down's Syndrome. It is no different than inflicting the disease or condition ourselves.

Roundabouts are awesome. But these Canadians have no idea how to use them, although they are in low quantity. They creep up slowly to them, look around, slowly roll out into them after a full stop and when they see no other cars for a kilometre or two, and then slowly drive around without signaling at all.

mtb0minime wrote:

MGS3_GrayFox wrote:

Tsk, sad thing is everyone only remembers the attacks on New York, no one seems to remember anything wrong their country did (this applies to whatever nasty thing happened in the UK and then the British Mandate of Palestine in the case of the Brits.).

Yeah it's a shame people remember friends, family, and loved ones who were lost in the attacks... you insensitive prick.

It's not just select families and friends, it is an entire nation that has raised this event into a monumental moment that many believe to be the greatest tragedy ever to occur, or at least they act that way. Many nations have suffered worse, numerous times. It is a shame, no doubt, but it is significant amongst world history only because Americans and their government seek to make it significant.

Iron Man - B
Tropic Thunder - B
Stepbrothers - F

On a Friday night, I like to head down to my neighbourhood pub or casino. But, you're likely underage. Bowling or swimming should be fun, or the movies, despite that you don't think any would work. Anyone who says no to those things isn't a very fun person. Just go out and find something to do, even if it doesn't seem so. Make your own fun. Isn't there any house parties? When I was underage, we always had two or three a weekend. Or getting plastered in a park, or a backyard campfire.

usmarine wrote:

Drakef wrote:

Is there anything to debate about the actual story? Yes, it does sound shameless, but not particularly relevant.

there is.

should she be fired?

should the hotel be fined?  shut down?

should people refuse to stay there?

plenty of things to discuss

As Obey_m0rph3us pointed out, there is little to discuss. A thread to attack liberals, nothing more.

Harmor wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

mayor of a small town > community organizer?  Whats the fucking difference?

About 8,500 people.

Spearhead wrote:

This isnt a resume competition.

When both sides talk about their experience to be POTUS, it is.

Spearhead wrote:

Its pretty sad there are so many people who honestly believe this bullshit the GOP has put out there saying Palin is more qualified than Obama.

She's been an executive where the buck stopped with her...not in a Foreign Relations committee.  She runs a state, not a pot luck at the local Y.

Most school superintendents (hell, even some principals) have had the experience of dealing with 8,500 people in an executive position. It's relevancy to her potential positions is equivalent to the bullshit that employers skip over when they read a resume.

I'm certainly no Obama fan. Neither do I identify with the Republican position, Mostly, I'm happy with politics north of the 49th. I'll be one to criticize Obama's lack of experience. No question about that. But when the Republicans intend to tout her as someone experienced while Obama is not, I call bullshit when I see it. After hammering Obama for months about his short time in federal politics, they pick someone with a short list of qualifications. She has been a Governor of Alaska for a year and a half. That's something, but it's not that much. It certainly doesn't count for any foreign policy experience.

Politically, Palin is a fine choice. A (relatively) young, attractive, socially conservative woman. It fits with what they need. I'd accept arguments for why she may make a fine vice-president. But when Republicans cry foul about some of the tactics used to smear her name, and the way they tout her 'experience', it is laughable. Don't get me wrong. The Democrats are just as guilty for choosing an inexperienced candidate, only to attack Palin for the same thing. I find little positive qualities for either party.

Is there anything to debate about the actual story? Yes, it does sound shameless, but not particularly relevant.

The speeches were effective, even if I find disagreement with them. Guiliani, however, seemed a poor speaker overall. He managed to convey his message, but not terribly eloquently. On the other hand, Palin seemed an able speaker, but wouldn't shut up about her family. Lovely stories, but irrelevant. 'Vice President Mom' seemed to be the topic, albeit I did not watch the entire speech. I shut it off after ten minutes of how lovely her family was. From what everyone else says, apparently she did well.

Also, was it just me, or did CNN try to pan around to all the black and Hispanic Republicans as much as possible?

Bash that silly Gutenburg on the head, or maybe prevent the Battle of Talas. I'm all about illiteracy tonight!

I just picked up mine today. Works like a dream.

specialistx2324 wrote:

how do i feel about gay people. first and foremost im not going to beat everyone with the religion rhetoric. gays and strait people can read for themselves. but you got to remember , with gay marriage increasing per year, the birth rate will go down dramatically. ill say it this way: try conceiving with two penises!

False, if not an outright lie.

specialistx2324 wrote:

the purpose of marriage is procreation not sensation. i could go on to say being homosexual is not acceptable/ its taboo in society since the beginning of time, but people will continue to do it.

Is the purpose of marriage procreation? Should we not then limit marriages to those couples who produce children? Interestingly enough, the primary reason, by overwhelming majority, for Canadian homosexual couples to marry, is to raise children. Must it be traditional procreation that defines marriage, or simply the raising of children?

specialistx2324 wrote:

but my belief of gay marriage is this: there are certain limits in human nature and in the natural world you just dont mess with.  it is very scary to conflict natural laws/ nature with rights/freedom and privaledges.  positive will always attract a negative charge, there is a sun in the day and a moon in the night, a sperm and egg makes kids,life does not exist without water and oxygen, there is gravity that holds us down, and so on. imagine a world where there is one skin color,one religion or everyone is gay in the world. How would you deal with that world? and ill tell you this: having gay marriages will alter the very definition of a family. In addtion, the existance of humanity would be altered forever because gay rights has construed the very definition of what makes a family.

Essentially, you are saying we should not allow gay marriage become we "just don't mess with" nature? You attempt to make it unnatural not only in a social sense, but by construing it as opposite to the very foundations of our world, such as water, oxygen and gravity, you attempt to make homosexuality something wrong, something that we cannot live with. You exaggerate on such a great level that you fail to register a valid point. There is no point to wondering about "a world where there is one skin color, one religion, or everyone is gay". It does not exist. It is as if we wonder whether the entire world is male- How do we reproduce? Completely pointless, and serves no valid purpose to the discussion.

specialistx2324 wrote:

if other states follow california, sooner or later maybe 20-30 years from now, the traditional family that has existed since the beginning of time will no longer exist. not only that, we are all born with a desire to have a mom and a dad regardless of race, color or religious beliefs. yes there are a lot of bad parents unfortunately.  a mother and a father have different role in raising kids. a father is able to do something that the mom cant and vice versa.  let me ask you this folks:  how will a young adult deal with psychological obstacles when he/she has 2 moms or 2 dads? hmmmm. ill tell you right now its not pretty.

You assume there is psychological damage, but you provide no proof, just the assumption that it is somehow wrong to children. Children are fine with it, as long as we don't bring them up as we have before, teaching them that homosexuality is wrong, or at best, strange and weird. If we do not reinforce this idiotic drivel, then children raised by gay parents will not be psychologically damaged.

specialistx2324 wrote:

a good number of my friends in High school are gay, to this day i still know them.  , but being gay is a matter of choice, not nature. for example i know someone back in highschool that was strait, had 2 girlfriends in HS and some college, and he is officially gay right now. i just saw his myspace page. people here say that being gay is not about choice but nature. if so then more of the human population would be gay. remember homosexuals constitutes a small part of the population.

How do you know it is choice and not nature? Your one example? It may be a classic example of someone struggling with their inner desires because they are being told it is wrong and evil, and finally accepting who they are later in life. It could be an example of someone choosing to be gay, for some reason, be it attention or some misconstrued ideas of his nature. It provides little proof either way. If "being gay is not about choice but nature", then it does not necessarily follow that "more of the human population would be gay". Little logic there.

specialistx2324 wrote:

from a sociological standpoint: a homosexual relationship of any kind is considered taboo. as a undergrad i took several courses in sociology. one thing my professor taught is that every right / freedom/ priviledge has a severe consequence no matter if it is good or bad.

It is considered taboo by many. Why don't we aim to change that? In many countries, including my own, it is no longer taboo, although some of the archaic beliefs of many remain, even in tolerant people.

As for your what your professor taught, I may summarize it quickly: Things have consequences. You can't seriously attempt to use university sociology in some argument against gay marriage, especially one that spells out an obvious trait of rights: Consequences- Which may or may not be bad! Do you not think that possible consequences are weighed before something such as gay marriage comes into law?

Overall, you present zero arguments against gay marriage.

I was really hoping you were going to talk about the band.

City is fairly good, though. I've never been, but I can assume. Boston Bruins and all.

IRONCHEF wrote:

Ok smart guy, you win.  Me and the vast majority of the WORLD POPULATION are all sickened with frenzied minds and the vast majority of that population have not had things happen to them, even on a daily basis that more than proves an existence of a supreme being.  I alone have had more evidence of his existence and intimate interaction that far outweigh the proof required to learn things that I see, hear, touch, and smell.  The problem with arrogant people who lack the balls to even "try" to believe in something greater than themselves is that they need it to be complex, difficult for the unlearned people to understand, and it has to have high worldly acclaim because you're too cowardly to go in on something without the masses behind you.  Just as current "theories" are popular now, they'll soon give way to even more impressive and complex theories that made the older ones look foolish.  That very concept shows despicable arrogance as you quickly discard what you "thought you knew" for what is now all the rage and boast of your wisdom and learning.  This concept has spanned the millenia as has religion..which hasn't changed it's basic precepts. 

And yes, one day you will know truths and hopefully you'll have learned them willingly.

As for me, I do know clearly and without distorted judgment that there is a God who literally created our spirits, this world, and many other worlds.  He exists just as you and I do.  And yes, he actually does love us, his children, regardless of our beliefs and decisions.  Sorry you can't fathom that basic truth nor the enormity of what that means.

I do not claim that "the world population are all sickened with frenzied minds". People need to believe in something that aids their understanding, and religion fills that void. I find it foolish, but nevertheless, there it is. I believe them mistaken, but who knows? Obviously, this majority has had things occur to them, but it may not be of a supernatural source. Every time you conclude that the existence of your god is proven, you look as the more foolish. I respect many religious people, who believe, but to make such claims that proof exists is simply wrong.

Naturally, I expected what followed your opening lines. Insults. That I am "arrogant", that I "lack the balls", and "cowardly". Obviously, because I do not believe what you do, I must be doing something wrong, that my personality flaws prevent me from being normal, or whatever. In any situation, you present nothing more than insults, and I could easily call you names and pretend that it is proof that those who do not believe as I do are wrong. By the way, these flaws of mine that you claim I have? I can't claim credit; I would be taking away from what your god has done! He is responsible for how I am, under your doctrine.

Yes, scientific theories always adapt to new evidence and new ideas. That is the point. As we learn more, we can come to new conclusions. It is a sound and logical way of living and learning. Science takes what we know, and creates conclusions. Religion takes a conclusion, and attempts to find facts to make that conclusion. Illogical.

And yes, one day you will know truths and hopefully you'll have learned them willingly. See? I can continue to just repeat EVERYTHING you say, since nothing you say has a shred of proof, only your opinion. I considered repeating your entire treatise here, since it can be easily adapted to my viewpoint, but I felt that too amateur. Sorry you can't fathom that basic truth nor the enormity of what that means.

IRONCHEF wrote:

Nope, wouldn't matter if I could prove it, nor has it mattered in centuries and millenia past for those who also proved it.  For that matter, it is not something that should be proven since "proving it" is contrary to the system of how faith works.  I wouldn't expect any of you to understand.

It wouldn't matter if I could disprove it, nor has it mattered in centuries and millenia past for those who also disproved it. For that matter, it is not something that should be disproven since we don't need to disprove the tooth fairy or unicorns. I wouldn't expect any of you to understand.

Also, I can say arrogant things such as this and pretend I'm right.

I can understand a theist, but you look fairly nutty trying to say that the existence of god has been proven. You look equally foolish by trying to aid your claim by simply dismissing atheists and agnostics because we wouldn't understand, or any other bullshit you can throw at us.

IRONCHEF wrote:

I like the apparent "FACT" that 95% of the world population (throughout time) are having a psychological fit and are simply conjuring the millions and millions of "coincidences" and outright evidences of nothing!

I literally could prove God's existence (and I probably have attempted it several times in several different ways on this forum), but using the same logic mentioned above that it's impossible to "convince" religionists of their folly, likewise you non-believers would never see the proof.  So as with all the threads of this nature that come up weekly, there is a complete impasse...one side cannot see the other side's reasoning, sadly.  However, as evidenced in some PMs I've received and similar experiences I've had in other places, there's always a handful of people with the ability to "honestly" explore and discover the truth of things by asking.  And for what it's worth, knowing one way or the other about this "simple" topic, is very, very easy...don't even have to spend time googling scientific or religious articles and theories and pretend that you know it all.  Sadly, it's not something discovered on a public forum..especially this one where maturity varies so drastically.

You "literally could prove god's existence"?

Doubtful. Men have attempted to do so for a great deal of time, and none have done so. It is foolish to say so, if not outright lying.

BigOrangeArmy wrote:

xBlackPantherx wrote:

1) No one ever said that. Again, stop fucking twisting and manipulating.
2) Evolution is essentially fact and has been proven time and time again. You may be too young to realize this but, in the real world, unsupported beliefs and thoughts are the kind of crap that gets you no where in life and could even get you fired from your job. It is very stupid to believe in something that makes no sense, is blind faith, is 100% unsupported, etc. Now there is a difference in that and not understanding Evolution; but to say it's flat out wrong and you're right is moronic and ignorant.
3) Of-fucking-course Christianity makes sense in the context of the Bible? Are you that...inelegantly inadequate?
4) We never said that in particular. Actually, you said that. We're disputing the fact you said that all these countries and their human rights are all a result of being atheistic, and it's not. Religion, or lack thereof, has nothing to do with political super-powers.
5) Please don't be so immature as to play the blame game. Maybe it's tolerable at your age, but not here.

1). Thats odd, apparently Jord thinks so. Apparently my science teacher thinks so. Dont give me that, you know people bash Christianity for being reasonless.
2). Tell me, where did you hear that Evolution is fact? Wanna know some things that Evolution hasn't provided? Has evolution provided an answer to where all the matter came from? Whats the chemical equation for personality? Where are all the thousands of missing links that nobody likes to talk about? Why do we have a desire to worship something---everybody worships something, be it money, sex, or their family. Have you seen how complex DNA is? Billions upon billions of tiny parts, billions and billions of them that govern your body with ruthless efficiency. Its a work of art. It seems more logical to believe someone made it than for it to magically come together in the cataclysmic span of time evolution says. Show me where it is proven that Creationism is wrong. And its not that Christianity isnt logical, people are lazy and don't actually read Christian arguments---not from some megaStar like Rick Warren, who is not an example of biblical Christianity.
3). So you're saying that because I believe in a reliable and true Bible that that automatically screws my attempts at making logical decisions about if Christianity or Atheism is correct? I could say the same thing about you
4). What about the Muslims in Iran and Afghanistan? Religion plays a huge role in affairs. Its called Sharia, and its what is getting American Soldiers killed. They say that if the Muslim kills the Infidel, they will go straight to paradise. Religion has tons to do with those countries, superpowers or not.
5.)Please, dont pull the "little kid" card on me. It just shows how arrogant and closeminded you are, not to consider other opinions without dismissing them immediatelly.

Obviously this topic is filled with biased people who jump to bash Christianity whenever they smell it. Apparently Im totally brainwashed, so I guess im beyond help.

/thread.

Obviously, you don't understand neither what evolution nor a scientific theory is. To save me from intensive writing, Wikipedia is your friend! To make it clear, however, a scientific theory is a logical explanation of scientific observations that relies on facts. It is true, until new information is discovered, whereupon the former theory is either discarded or reworked.

Neither do you seem to understand that ignorance is not a proponent for the argument for the existence of god. If we do not know, it does not mean that religion is correct; it only means that we do not know.

Christianity is certainly not logical. You can attempt to pretend that people are "lazy and don't actually read Christian arguments", but you are only lying to yourself.

Lastly, despite all attempts to use language in a method to attack your detractors, such as calling them "biased" when you are as easily biased, only makes you the fool.

xBlackPantherx wrote:

Drakef wrote:

I must be missing it. What does a "logically and scientifically perfect utopia" have to do with atheism? How does atheism "justify mass killing millions to billions via 'science and logic'"? Are you really quoting from I Don't Believe in Atheists? You could do better.

You are missing it. What part of the term "Atheistic Utopian" do you not understand?? The people that are defined by this term are a step beyond the ordinary atheist. They seek a perfect utopia where everyone is perfect and will eliminate millions upon millions who are 'inadequate' or 'barbaric', as defined by their views, through the means of 'science and logic'; science being mainly WMD's. I'll be straight with you. I plain don't get your last statement. I was quoting it, roughly anyways, just from what I remember accurately enough; if that's what you're asking??

It is the correlation of atheism and this "utopian" idea that does not necessarily exist.

xBlackPantherx wrote:

Drakef wrote:

Defiance wrote:

As bad as religious extremists can be, atheist radicals are as bad as any. In that sense, atheism is as bad as any religion.

I'm interested. How is atheism "bad as any religion"?

Read my post.

Here:

me wrote:

Well said. But there is no such thing as a perfect world. Read the first part of the book "I don't believe in atheists" and you'll see why. The only thing scarier than a "Christian Supremacist" is an "Atheistic Utopian". They "...justify mass killing millions to billions via 'science and logic' in order to eradicate the 'inadequate' and the 'barbaric' for a 'logically and scientifically perfect utopia..."

I must be missing it. What does a "logically and scientifically perfect utopia" have to do with atheism? How does atheism "justify mass killing millions to billions via 'science and logic'"? Are you really quoting from I Don't Believe in Atheists? You could do better.

Defiance wrote:

As bad as religious extremists can be, atheist radicals are as bad as any. In that sense, atheism is as bad as any religion.

I'm interested. How is atheism "bad as any religion"?

I'll die eventually, and there's nothing I can do about it. Logically, there's no reason to worry about it.

Uzique wrote:

Characteristically morals don't have a standard really. They change with time and public opinion/views, and are only actually codified and set in concrete in pieces of law and legislation. Otherwise a moral code is just a basic concept of what is 'Right or Wrong' with no severe reprimand for the latter being in place. If you break the moral code of your community / society then of course you are shunned and perhaps even ostracized. But it's not quite the same as being told by your officer that if you don't fulfill an order you will be shot in the head. I would also tend to agree on the topic of there being a 'relative human morality'- you know, a basic level grasp of what is fundamentally right or wrong (e.g. genocide). But you have to remember that popular morality is dictated by the laws of the state and the attitudes of the people within it. In a largely anti-Semitic society with a totalitarian control over outside-influence and the media, you have to question whether any of these acts would have actually appealed to these people's sense of humanity (i.e. the relative moral code). They were basically living in their own propaganda-driven bubble with an extremely distorted view on world events.

Well, of course, this is fairly obvious.

FEOS wrote:

Drakef wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I submit that morality is relative TO A DEGREE. Just because the ones doing the deed feel it is morally OK does not make it so.

Do you think it's morally OK to behead innocent civilians on film? Of course not. But those that did it do.

Do you think it's morally OK to stone a woman to death because she was accused of adultery? Of course not. But those that did it do.

Relative morality is applicable to a specific population, not to the world as a whole. The fact that that population feels an action is morally acceptable does not make it morally acceptable to the rest of the world. Otherwise, there would be no laws against genocide and other crimes against humanity.

I apologize, but I'm not understanding. In what way is morality relative "to a degree"?

What isn't clear?

What is morally acceptable in one culture may not be morally acceptable elsewhere (hence, the term "relative", as in "relative to other cultures"). That does not make it OK to do the deed, particularly if you are on the losing side of both the conflict and world opinion/law.

Degrees come into play when you start looking at the actions themselves. For example, female castration is morally reprehensible in most Western cultures, but is perfectly acceptable in others. Does that call for moral outrage from the global community? Not necessarily.

Systematic killing of entire ethnic groups is another issue entirely.

See the degree of moral relativity there?

I see morality as completely relative, with no standard whatsoever, and what you wrote does not disagree at all, except perhaps the bit about systematic killings. That, too, is completely relative. Perhaps I mistook what you said, but it appears that we agree.

FEOS wrote:

I submit that morality is relative TO A DEGREE. Just because the ones doing the deed feel it is morally OK does not make it so.

Do you think it's morally OK to behead innocent civilians on film? Of course not. But those that did it do.

Do you think it's morally OK to stone a woman to death because she was accused of adultery? Of course not. But those that did it do.

Relative morality is applicable to a specific population, not to the world as a whole. The fact that that population feels an action is morally acceptable does not make it morally acceptable to the rest of the world. Otherwise, there would be no laws against genocide and other crimes against humanity.

I apologize, but I'm not understanding. In what way is morality relative "to a degree"?

FEOS wrote:

Chrisimo wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Indeed it's not.

However, add the word "immoral" to the "illegal" part. Soldiers are required to NOT follow orders that are immoral and/or illegal.

Then there's that whole bit about Germany losing and the victors determining who broke what laws.

But what is immoral? Morality is a personal matter. Some people do not have morals at all. Some people say it way morally ok to firebomb Dresden (because Germany started the war). Some think different. I think your last sentence says it all. Every person has his/her own morals. The morals of those with power however are those that count.

If someone has to explain that systematically murdering, torturing, and experimenting on millions of people simply because they worship differently or have a different cultural background is immoral...

Seriously. Do you really think morality is THAT relative?

Are morals not relative when the destruction of European Jews was considered a moral act not only by the government of Nazi Germany, but also ordinary citizens, bolstered by the anti-Semitism of numerous governments and a large part of the European population, both pre-war and post-war?

Morality is completely relative and subjective to the views of each individual person. Morals are a human concept, and we mistake common morals for absolute morals. The majority cannot decide on a definition of what is moral when it is not common to everyone.

As much as I can recall, largely the enlisted German soldier was, in most cases, not required to carry out the actions of murder that were usually performed by the killing squads (for the life of me, I cannot remember the German term for the squads at the moment). They would simply be reassigned to different areas. On the other hand, the SS, and especially Eichmann's division, were responsible for committing such acts purposely. As well, as an officer of high rank in the SS, he did not have the choice as a Heer soldier did.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Drakef wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Right, show me someone that would rather be a teacher than a president of a multi-million dollar company. As for the "can" do, do I have to start listening the number of people that are high ranks in a company by birthright? What makes them apt to the position?

Seriously? You're willing to argue this point? It's basic economics that one should learn in first year university, if not in some degree in high school. It's definitely not my area of study, but it is so bloody obvious I have no idea what you could actually disagree with the theories of the economics in principle. You might want to read a book or at least Wikipedia on supply and demand at the very least, and you may understand.

How about reading my post before telling me to read wikipedia hrmm?

A lot of people would like to be a CEO, that makes the expected pay lower according to your economic principles. As for the ability to be a CEO, I already said there are much less qualified people in those positions now than the ones earning shit pay as a policeman, and:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Nothing you mentioned can be learned in school. Work ethic, business sense, communication skills, all things that are natural and at best honed in school. Any person with these skills can take a shot at running a business, and have about as close a shot as anyone at success. Reading about all the failed CEOs in the paper, it sure does look like a hit or miss proposition to me.

I did read your post. It wasn't logical.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Drakef wrote:

It's simple economics. Apply your supply and demand laws. Those positions which few are willing to do or few can do are more highly paid because if they weren't of excellent pay, no one would enter those professions at all. Soldiers, teachers, firefighters, law enforcement all can be done by a wide variety of people, and many are willing to do so at the wages available. It's almost purely economics.

Right, show me someone that would rather be a teacher than a president of a multi-million dollar company. As for the "can" do, do I have to start listening the number of people that are high ranks in a company by birthright? What makes them apt to the position?

Seriously? You're willing to argue this point? It's basic economics that one should learn in first year university, if not in some degree in high school. It's definitely not my area of study, but it is so bloody obvious I have no idea what you could actually disagree with the theories of the economics in principle. You might want to read a book or at least Wikipedia on supply and demand at the very least, and you may understand.

It's simple economics. Apply your supply and demand laws. Those positions which few are willing to do or few can do are more highly paid because if they weren't of excellent pay, no one would enter those professions at all. Soldiers, teachers, firefighters, law enforcement all can be done by a wide variety of people, and many are willing to do so at the wages available. It's almost purely economics.

I rarely listen to anything post-1985. Music mostly died along with Keith Moon and John Bonham.

I do not particularly care about the Olympics; accordingly, I will likely not watch any event.

imortal wrote:

I was offering possibilities; something I see precious other people here doing.  Also, because it is an old argument does not invalidate it.  And yes, it can be difficult to judge the possibilities of a 'message from god' from ordinary happenings; it does make it rather convient for hindsight, does it not?

The greeks used to refer to people who heard 'voices' as being touched by the gods.  Now, we just throw them in a nut house or out on the street.

"Sometimes, if you do things right, nobody will know you did them at all."  God, in Futurama

I am simply trying to debate here.  There has to be some wiggle room between "There is a God, and nothing you tell me will prove otherwise," and "There is NO God, and nothing you tell me will prove otherwise."

I did not say that because it was an old argument that it was invalid. I expressed my sentiments that it is a cop-out. As with many religious arguments, the conclusion (a god exists) has already been reached, and arguments for that proposition are created subsequently. Hardly logical.

Yes, we do throw those who talk to a god into a nut house. For good reason- Lack of sanity. If I talked to Zeus, or the Easter Bunny, or my dead ancestors, it would be no different.

You also misunderstand my argument. As an atheist, I lack belief in supernatural beings. Logically, I consider the possibility of supernatural beings, particularly gods, to be low (albeit not zero), and therefore I lack belief. I am completely open to change, but I have yet to hear a compelling argument. To an atheist such as I, the idea of a god seems archaic and without any place in reality- Even childish. It is no different than the existence of the Tooth Fairy. How would you react if a forty year old man attempted to convince you that money would be under your pillow if you left money there the previous night? Imagine this man is one of many, billions who rule the planet, attempting to rule governments and teach children according to this doctrine. In essence, it becomes a grand comedy. Against this silliness, I would not be prepared to so easily give myself to religion without sufficient evidence. No, I do not adhere to "There is NO gods, and nothing you will tell me will prove otherwise". I only lack belief in the subject.

imortal wrote:

Ever see Bruse Almighty?  Funny movie.  Remember the part where he was driving and praying to God to show him a sign?  Remember the truck full of road signs that pulled out in front of him?

You may have been listening carefully, but who is to say if you were listening or watching the right things, or if you even recognized if or when it happened?  Who knows, maybe you were praying to the wrong god after all.  All of those are just as likely as your "There is no God" statement.

Ah, the old argument that for whatever reason the gods decline to speak directly to humans, but instead use 'signs'. Naturally, this follows from the complete lack of interaction man has with his gods, and is an explanation for it. After all, if you talk to a god, you're a nut. Now, if someone fails to note these 'signs', the only possible explanation must be that this person is missing the 'signs'. How utterly convenient.

If we were to assume a god being as similar to human concepts, particularly the Abrahamic model, did exist (as unlikely as it may be), he would be an evil fuck, and one I would never worship regardless of existence.

Stingray24 wrote:

I do not claim to understand exactly how our choices and God's infinite knowledge coexist.  To have such knowledge I would have to be God.  I do know the following from the Bible: 
He is aware of every choice we make and what our fate will be as sinful humans incapable of perfection.  We must be separate from God because of our sin, but God wanted a relationship with those whom He created.  We cannot earn Heaven, because no matter how many good works we do, we are still sinful.  Knowing this, He provided salvation by the death of His perfect son Jesus Christ to pay the penalty for our sins that we could never pay.

We are sinful only because of his choice under that doctrine.

If your god did create us, then is he not responsible for how we choose? Even if we were to dismiss that line of reasoning, we must consider that he is aware of every choice we will make, and therefore he knows our fate. There is no need to test us, and to create beings that he is fully aware of their eventual fate in hell, then he is also malevolent.

The ideas of omnipotence and omniscience and easily challenged in correlation with free will, unless this god is evil. Then he may be all powerful and all knowing.

I missed the earlier battle, but I'd love to try to get into the next one.

Kmarion wrote:

rammunition wrote:

CC-Marley wrote:

He basically bashed America and sounded like he was running for the President of the world.

he "bashed" America because of the mistakes the U.S has made. The division between the U.S and Europe is huge due to Bush's/America's policy's. To build bridges again you got to acknowledge that mistakes on your behalf have been made.

rammunition.. just the guy we need to tell us how to start the healing.

rammunition for President 2012. You'll just have to waive that 'born in the States' rule.

Professor of History. On my way to that goal.

I believe Obama said it himself, when he acknowledged that advice from military commanders is valuable, but is merely part of one area of governance. Its relevance must be considered in relation to other areas, when the executive concern is not merely military decisions, but political decisions as well, and not only considering one region of the world.

University and work seven days a week, up at 7 AM everyday. Fit in papers at night. Not a large wage, but it accumulates. Money is easy to come by.

I do spend recklessly anyway. Enjoy life when you can.

Essentially, the paper is willing to print a McCain piece, just as it did with Obama?

The only issue is that they want something a bit more interesting from him than his first attempt for their paper, which is standard policy with any op-ed writer.

A non-issue.

The Who fucking kick ass. Best band to ever create music. Fuck you all with your Youtube links. Just listen to The Who's 1971 Who's Next album.

Anything that fucking cuts the hair! I have no fucking idea. I have a beard. I haven't used razors much in a while.

Beards fucking rock.

max wrote:

I love going to the dentist. My doctor is hot and I get to stare at her tits the whole time

Except this guy.