Vote

OverMyHead wrote: phospher wrote: OverMyHead, You really have no idea how ignorant you sound to people like me. I'm going to spare everyone what I've already gone over but I think I answer all of your questions right here: http://www.correctcraftfan.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=16590&PN=1&title=it-should-be-true Please do read that thread in it's entirety and if you would like to pick up the religion discussion simply reply to that thread and I'll follow up. Here's a taste; Phil, I started eading the other thread, and will get through the rest of the 9 pages tonight. I dont mind being called ignoraant by someone who's thinking is limited to the little box you allow yourself. When you look at the question "where did life begin?" you preface it with "and you cant say God". You will obviously pick the best answer left from your limited selection, Same as asking "Is there life after death? but you cant say heaven". When a variable is eliminated from an experiment it can never be a part of its conclusion. I am sure this brings you great comfort in that you never have to challenge what you "Know" to be true. It is a technique used as a cruthch by those with weak minds. Think about my DNA questions. Science says all DNA comes from existing. How did we get the first batch with complete instructions to build a functional organism that could also perfectly replicate itself and thus propegate a species. With an open mind that should cause some uneasyness within your perfectly ordered world. If it does not you have the same narrow minded arrogant know it all thinking as those that assured Galilao that the sun orbited the earth, and the wright brothers that heavier than air machines could not fly.

You should read people like Carl Sagan, Lawrence Krauss(A universe from nothing), Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Stephen Hawking. Then and only then may you begin to understand how ignorant you sound. If you only spent half as much time learning about science and biology as you did studiying your childish christian books... And for the record I was raised Catholic(make me puke) I would be willing to bet I know the religion better than you. I've also studied several other religions all which conflict with each other and all whom think they have the correct answers. You need a course in critical thinking and rational thinking.

Phil,

I didn't see a response to my last statement / question. I'm curious on your thoughts.

now an Atheist believes you die and thats it, an agnostic believes in a higher power but not sure...maube like a guy on death row that seeks redemption from the Church after commiting the sin. where does the paranormal fall in place? you cant say we fade away because we dont, proven many times

eric,

Just wondering if it changed anyone's mind about what they think about the man. Sounds like it didn't for you.

Generally, it didn't change much for me either, but there were a few things I wasn't aware of that were revealed.

like what? good christians dont send men to war for personal gain?

now, if he gave the book away, I might read it

I think it takes a lot of character to admit you did something wrong and take responsibility for it. I also think it takes a lot of character to stand by decisions you thought were right and have found out since were based upon bad information.

Ultimately I don't agree with everything Bush did, but I have respect that he deliberated upon the information at hand and made a decision. Then, he stuck by that decision and accepted the consequences of the decision. Isn't that what a leader (of anything) should do?

eric lavine wrote: like what? good christians dont send men to war for personal gain?

Christians are not Moral nor Ethical. Is it moral to believe that your sins can be forgiven by the punishment of another person? No, that's called scapegoating. "Compulsory love", "love your enemy". No, we destory our enemy and after 9/11 most all of the Christians agreed.

I did see a show on the pope letting those little Nazi bastards sneak on out of the country, living the good life in South America

phospher wrote: Okie Boarder wrote: Phil, I didn't see a response to my last statement / question. I'm curious on your thoughts. Yes, I see what your saying but no I don't agree. Pastors shouldn't become wealthy period.

Fair enough, I kind of figured you wouldn't agree. I'm not sure I would say most pastors are becoming wealthy. Even making $100k in today's day and age isn't "wealthy".

phospher wrote: The fact of the matter is that there are always going to be poor people having children who need assistance. No matter what you say about accountability(which I personally agree with) people are still going to need to be cared for.

Yeah, I would agree that there will always be needy people. I also think it is the right thing to do to be compassionate and helpful to your fellow man. The methods is where you and I disagree.

I'm not fond of a forced "donation" to provide programs through government. I think it breeds a lack of accountability and dependency on an organization and provides somewhat of an anonymity to the person receiving the help, which fosters an attitude that it is deserved. Another aspect I don't like is the waste and all the middle men taking their cut.

I wouldn't say I have a problem with an organization facilitating the assistance, but I would prefer if the entire "donation" went to the person needing it.

I'm personally more fond of giving to others directly. First of all, it makes sure 100% of the "donation" is in the hands of the person that needs it. I think that type of methodology also breeds a little stronger sense of accountability.

If you've ever struggled enough to need help and received it both ways, you would understand what I mean. When a buddy, or family member, or neighbor helps you out, you feel compelled to help them back later or show them that you worked hard to use their help as a means to improve things for yourself. When it is a faceless organization, like our government, the mentality is that they can just keep helping you and you don't have as strong a reason to better yourself.

phospher wrote: I personally did not start a family until both me and my wife were well established in our careers but that is just not the case for everyone. Your argument reminds me of the Pope a former Nazi himself, condeming condoms in Sub-Saharan Africa where over 22 million people are infected with Aids.

I think that was a smart decision on your part. My wife and I did the same. Ultimately, though, that is a decision. When I was living on my own right after high school and dirt poor, made sure I did everything in my power to ensure I didn't end up as a teenage daddy. It's really not that hard and it is a smart decision. Give people some credit, but give them accountability and they will usually make better decisions. When they know they are always able to go on the government dole, it's hard to foster that type of accountability.

My argument isn't necessarily condmning anything, though. The deal is to me is that everyone in this world, no matter how intelligent or financially stable, knows that sexual intercourse can cause a pregnancy. Birth control methods only reduce the chance of it happening to a calculated risk. If you can barely afford to support yourself why would you risk putting yourself in a worse situation by having a baby to support. Here's an interesting thought...

If we had no welfare and no method of caring for poor that get pregnant, teenage pregnancies, etc., how much would the issue be reduced? If a person believed they had to make it on their own if they decided to risk getting pregnant don't you think they would try harder to not let it happen?

When I was a teenager I had a couple friends deal with teenage pregnancy. There was no way I was doing that. I knew that intercourse was a calculated risk and not a risk I was willing to take, so I stayed away from it. There are plenty of other ways to satisfy the raging teenage hormones that pose no risk of pregnancy.

Phil, no surprise you betting you no more about religion than me. You keep saying how intelligent you are and how ignorant that I am, but I put myself out there and elaborate on a scientific concept and you don't follow up. So why don't you and your Sagen educated brain answer my quandry. Where did the first DNA come from in all it's complexity? Put up or shut up.

OverMyHead wrote: Phil, no surprise you betting you no more about religion than me. You keep saying how intelligent you are and how ignorant that I am, but I put myself out there and elaborate on a scientific concept and you don't follow up. So why don't you and your Sagen educated brain answer my quandry. Where did the first DNA come from in all it's complexity? Put up or shut up.

Well if you actually took the time to watch some of the things I've posted you would know...

Very briefly, DNA came from Nucleotides. The nucleotides were created from hydrogen, hydrogen cyanide, ammonia, and methane.

I'm no physicists but most of the smartest people ever to live are and this stuff is not quick or easily explained.


You can learn too grasshopper;

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/a-universe-from-nothing-lecture/



We would not have taken up theoism if we knew then what we know today.

phospher wrote: Okie, I agree with a lot of your last comments but this comment If we had no welfare and no method of caring for poor that get pregnant, teenage pregnancies, etc., how much would the issue be reduced? Leads me to believe that you have never been to a third world country.

My argument has nothing to do with a third world county, it has to do with our country. I understand your point, though. Many of the populace of those countries have a different philisophical view of raising a family. You'll also notice that many families are grouped together with many generations to pool resources and help each other out. One thing interesting to note is that they are far more poor than the poorest in America, yet they continue to survive as a people without any social programs.

I'm trying to steer away from the religious aspect of this conversation since many of us has hashed it out already. But, a lot of today's posts brought me to a thought that I haven't asked about before.

I'm sure nobody would deny the fact that us human beings have a sense that we came from something. There is a yearning inside us to discover what that something is. Where do you think that comes from?

harddock wrote: I never mentioned anything about knowing, liking, believing etc. the pope. But you need to show me where he said he prefered those people die. Until you can do that don't shove your bulls__t opinions at me and tell me when I'm right or wrong.

Now that's a good Christian response! Careful, he will send you to hell for thought crime too. Think about that, hell. What deranged person would even think of such a thing? And what nimrod would design a world with so many flaws? C'mon, use rational thinking.

What you said was that I was taking the Pope out of context. I'm still trying to find where I took the pope's comments out of context. The pope choosing to allow people to die is the conclusion that I come to when he is against condoms in a country like Africa despite their Aids epidemic. Seems pretty clear to me. And again, if it wasn't the pope, if it was you who commited the crimes of the pope you would be in prison.

"In May 2005, shortly after taking office, the pope made his first pronouncement on Aids, and came out against condoms. He was addressing bishops from South Africa, where somebody dies of Aids every two minutes; Botswana, where 23.9% of adults between 15 and 49 are HIV positive; Swaziland, where 26.1% of adults have HIV; Namibia (a trifling 15%); and Lesotho, 23%.

This is continuing. In March 2009, on his flight to Cameroon (where 540,000 people have HIV), Pope Benedict XVI explained that Aids is a tragedy "that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems". In May 2009, the Congolese bishops conference made a happy announcement: "In all truth, the pope's message which we received with joy has confirmed us in our fight against HIV/Aids. We say no to condoms!"

src: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/11/bad-science-pope-anti-condom

The next time you get sick don't go to the doctor, go to the pope and see how far it get's you. Don't take that over the counter medicine pray to your god and see how far it get's you.