Creation: yea or nay?

i bet

this is bound to be a great topic. wish i stuck around all those years ago to read it but the evil eros rex scared me off. god created life then eros and then bortis made him his bitch. the story of life. joy

 

yes

well true and it seems like alot of the same poeple here too. even the two aussie boys i see.

 

Historically, we have Deist roots, not Christian roots. The Founding Fathers were not Christians. Fundamentalist Protestantism is a movement that arose in the U.S. at the end of the 19th/beginning of the 20th century and the country has become far more Protestant Christian since then than it ever was before. Fundamentalist Christianity is uniquely American by the way; the majority of the world's Christians are neither Protestants nor Fundamentalists. Other than the Middle East, the U.S. is widely considered the most religious country on earth by most other industrialized countries.

Maybe you are too young to remember but the U.S. used to be a lot more secular than it is now. It is becoming more hostile to non-Christians every year.

 

Liberal values include such things as tolerance and compassion, valuing reason and science over superstition and ignorance, a love of knowledge and education, and a desire to advance the state of humankind through material progress and equity in wealth distribution.

Liberals tend to be more educated, tolerant, well-travelled and familiar with other cultures, and more interested in a stable social order via equitable wealth distribution than conservatives. Liberals tend to be concentrated in cities since people there are exposed to a much broader variety of people/beliefs/cultures, and also have greater access to educational and cultural opportunities. It is no accident the "red states" are primarily rural.

There are conservatives in the U.S., primarily in the Northeast and California, in cities who are not Fundamentalists, but rather "fiscal responsibility" conservatives interested in tax reduction and such, but they are not fanatics so I don't feel concerned about them like I do about the growth of Fundamentalism.

Liberal values are indeed on the way out, which is why I think we are in a downward race with the Middle East and eventually Europe when they become overrun with Muslims. Fundamentalist Muslims and Fundamentalist Christians basically have the same values: they think they have "the truth" from a divine revelation and feel no need to investigate further; an emphasis on the afterlife rather than science and material progress; intolerance of other belief systems and a conviction that they must be wiped out since they are a threat to the truth and true believers; an acceptance of a social order with a gross disparity in the distribution of wealth, with the inevitable result of corruption and tyranny; the oppression of women as an inferior gender in the eyes of their god; and a desire to legislate their morality and use the power of the state to punish the lifestyles of those who differ from them. Their only difference is what their holy book is and minor details of theology.

The Islamic theology is cleaner and more logical (none of this trinity nonsense - Islam is true monotheism) so in the end I think it will triumph over Christianity in the West, just like it did in Europe and Asia during the period of Islamic expansion from around 630 A.D. through around 1680 A.D. Remember the "Christian breadbasket" where most of the world's Christians were at that time were the heavily populated areas of the Byzantine Empire - Turkey, the Levant, and Egypt - all of which converted to Islam.

I think Islamic immigration into Europe will finish the job that was delayed by the Turkish defeat at the Second Siege of Vienna in the late 17th century.

 

Well, that certainly sounds nice. However, it describes no liberal that I know, except for that last part, "equity in wealth distribution." Meaning steal from the rich, and give to the poor, who were indeed victimized by the rich, and it is the rich who have caused them to be in their current state of poverty.

.....and they can't depend on themselves for a living. They need the government to support them. They are lawyers, group therapists that invented the "group hug", they are "girlie men" with jobs that require sensitivity over sensibility, emotion over sweat.

The "rurals" that you snub your nose at are the loggers, doctors, coal miners, small business owners, and farmers who make their living from the sweat of their brow, not the handouts of the government. If there is one thing I am sick of, it's a fucking Yankee telling me that I don't have any culture. While the limp-wristed, pale-legs, shorts with black socks and sandels-wearing Yankee goes to the "Theater" to take in Cats, we get together with our friends, family and neighbors for an annual hog-killing. In the evening, we eat and make music, and teach our children the values that were taught to us. You can keep your "culture".

And fundamentalism is dying by the wayside as well, I believe, but you wouldn't know that to watch the news. I'm not a fanatic, nor a fundamentalist.

This is bullshit. At least the part about the Christians. A lot it applies to, yes. But, just as before, I think that the ignorant are the minority.

Again, bullshit.

Muslims, yes. Christians, no. I'm curious. How do you "know" all of this, seeing as how you're not a "fundamentalist" Christian, yourself? How would you like it if I launched on a tirade making up all kinds of bull butter and calling them facts about whatever it is you stand for? If indeed you do stand for something.

You think it's your job to distribute money to the poor? What you speak of smacks of communism, sir. Oh, and like the current feel-good generation of giving welfare to the ghetto whores, and the human trash, and the drug-heads is an uncorrupt system. If you ask me, tyranny is telling me that I've got to give up my hard earned money so some piece of trash in the slums can get a check.

Hah! I really don't see how you make the comparision between Islamists and Christians. Especially with this point. And again, I ask you, you are an expert because........?

Actually, we just want to leave alone, and be left alone by people with different lifestyles. Wanna be a fag? Fine, go stick it in an ass, but don't smear it all in front of my kids faces on the t.v. Wanna put a towel on your head? Fine, happy for you, but stay off of our planes and away from our World Trade Center.

You know not of what you speak.

 

Ignoring evolution, creationism does not explain why, when fossils do exist and we can carbon date remains, we have found no humans as old as dinosaurs. We can say humans weren't around at this time period, but some time between then and now we have found human remains etc. I think its stretching it a bit to say God created organisms in batches when it states in the bible that all was made at once.

There are theories on how we evolved from amoebas but my knowledge is not great in this area.
I believe one theory on this is that one group became capable (after alot mutation) of eating the others for nutrients.
Or as the code changed enough to create bi-celled organisms.
Basically a quite sound idea is that, with DNA, energy and a lot of time more complicated codes and organisms are inevitable

 

Retard, it's not bullshit; radical fundamentalists of all kinds tend towards ignorance, hatred, and ethnocentrism. They hate other cultures because they aren't like them. Christianity is no exception, we have our nut jobs. While you are correct, they are a minority, they also tend to draw support from more moderate conservatives. If you stack the beliefs up one by one they are the complete extreme of conservatism, which in the extreme does provide against all forms of progress, but they are able to use subterfuge and misdirection to draw support from the much more populous moderate group.

I can't say that they are much worse than fanatical liberals. Liberalism in the extreme is as destructive as extreme conservatism. While conservatism wishes to eliminate all forms of progress from our world, in the sake of tradition, extreme liberalism wishes to change the state of where things are to a different state, regardless of whether or not the change would be beneficial, or if the idea to be changed to is actually pretty fucking stupid, eliminating all guns for example.

Extremity in any way is harmful to our country, keeping an open mind will naturally make you lean towards the middle. Whether you're on the right or the left makes no difference, it only leads to positive discussion, but if everyone keeps their mind open to new ideas and thoughts, then when a good idea comes along it can be picked up, and when a bad idea comes along it can be shot down.

 

Creationism should only be taught in classrooms where all other major religions - and atheism - are also taught without prejudice.

A person should have the right to determine his own beliefs and when we bias his schooling we impinge on that right.

If you are a member of a religion and believe that teaching someone that religion exclusively is necessary, you are basically admitting that god and the person will not find each other without your help. Quite an admission. A religion found on truth should shine out amongst false religions and a true and real god should be obvious to people of pure heart (eg children).

 

Retard's post is such a perfect self-indictment I see no need to respond to it. He represents everything I despise in American society, and people like him give America a bad name to the rest of the civilized world.

I can't help, however, but demonstrate how absurd his claim is that the "Yankees" are somehow being subsidized by welfare, by the "coal miners and farmers" of the South. In fact, Northern states like New Jersey, New York and Connecticut contribute more federal dollars than they get back, while the reverse is generally true of rural and Southern states. A table can be found here showing who are the welfare "givers" and "takers" in the U.S.:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxingspending.html

Rural places like Alabama and Mississippi do not produce wealth, they consume it, thanks to government programs. This wealth is generated by Northern and urban areas. Retard has a tenous grasp on reality at best.

In any case, equity in wealth redistribution is not communism. Communism is where, in an industrialized state, the state owns all the means of production, i.e. there is no private ownership of capital. Obviously if you take an item of capital from person A and give it to person B, the item does not end up under state ownership and it is not communism. We have wealth redistribution already; it is called the progressive income tax and things like the tax deduction for mortgage interest, Medicaid and Medicare, government handouts for farmers, and corporate welfare. Nobody seriously questions whether wealth redistribution should occur, and nobody with an education in economics considers it communism; the question is, is the current form equitable.

Any student of history knows that social stability and prosperity are always linked to large middle classes. In Central America this is demonstrated by Costa Rica compared to her neighbors. Allow the wealth to become too concentrated and you get a banana republic. And concentration of wealth over time is an inherent feature of capitalist societies. If government does not intervene to keep resetting the clock, you end up with a poker game where one guy has enough chips to force everyone else to fold by simply betting more than they have. As an example Microsoft simply buys any promising young company which develops an innovative product which could threaten Microsoft. This frustrates the free market system of competition and you end up with a monolithic system, rather like communism but with Microsoft rather than the state controlling the means of (software) production.

As an aside, radiocarbon dating only goes back to around 50,000 years ago in terms of effectiveness. Other radiometric techniques must be used for dating older objects. Such techniques (using other elements) do exist and are used, so make sure you ignore any Creationist claims trying to undermine evolution by criticizing radiocarbon dating.

Regarding liberalism, "in the duty of the state to alleviate social ills" includes, of course, inequities of wealth distribution, which is a serious social ill.

 

chuft, you should have a chat with my Dad some time - you can trade "Muslims taking over the world!" conspiracy theories . That said, I think you have a point - I find myself torn between reasonable scepticism ("You are so paranoid dude") and knee-jerk fear ("Holy shit! It all makes sense!"), balanced by the same two feelings when it comes to Islam's well-documented religious domination plans, and just how far they've progressed.

I am reminded of the saying "People will believe a lie either because they want to, or because they're afraid it's true" in this situation. Am I simply being paranoid, or are my fears justified? I don't know, which is why I vacillate between the two, and uncertainty of knowledge is probably my greatest everyday fear. I absolutely hate not knowing what the real truth is, and not knowing scares the bejesus out of me. Ignorance sometimes is bliss (particularly when it comes to domestic subjects), but as someone who prizes knowledge and truth this sort of situation/conspiracy theory/grand plan/whateverthefuckitis in which I can't determine said facts is my personal demon.

I settle this dilemna (and other similar ones) by not thinking about it most of the time (which is probably what the would-be Muslim overlords want me to do, but only IF they're planning what I hope they're not planning - see how this works now?) and just doing it in ultra-paranoid bursts, like I am now.

Oh god, I'm going to be up all night now...

 

I don't think there is a conspiracy. Conspiracies are secret and orchestrated by a handful of leaders. I think eventual world domination, with Islam being the only religion, is the mindset of the average Muslim, and there is nothing secret about it. Individuals differ - some of them are content to let it happen in its own good time, and some want to accelerate the process by radical action. But one pattern is clear: get enough Muslims in one place and they start calling for sharia law and often start secessionist movements.

British Muslims want Islamic law and prayers at work:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858, ... 90,00.html

 

I'm sorry to say this but they can all go to fuck off back home or go met Allah 40 years early if they want to change laws for religious purposes.

If they want Islamic law they can go invade Jerusalem and set up a palestinian state.

Relgion should not be recognized by the state, just as race should not. Religion and the State need to be seperate to stop biases and they want to change this? If they want to segregate themselves they can go do it somewhere else.

 

I agree. This islamic law nonsense should not fly. In america we can't even put up the ten commandments in courts (which i agree with, even though I have nothing against the ten commandments), but making something religious a part of civil law is absolute insanity.

 

That's the biggest fucking cop-out I've ever heard.

Then again, I'm not surprised. Liberals like you tend to back off and throw insults from behind cover when a conservative gives them points that are difficult to argue. You've rhapsodized so much when you weren't spoken to directly that I find it difficult to believe that you suddenly have nothing to say when Retard brings the fight to your door.

 

The fact that you are impressed with his points does not mean they are valid ones. It simply means you agree with his warped worldview. I do not waste my time refuting obvious bigoted nonsense. There is an endless supply of that in the Internet; arguing with anyone who posted garbage would be a full-time job.

 

If thats not a pile of bigoted horse shit, then I dont know what is.

When has this actually happened...? Please don't forget "get online and berate people(yankee/foreigner teenagers) in computer game related forums.
I f'ing hate it when you liberals throw insults like this around... You are a liberal right? Because according to sigurd only liberals fling insults around and refuse to listen to opposing viewpoints.

This actually sounds very close to utopia, why do you insist on hanging on to such an impossible dream?

I'd call you an anarchist if I didn't know any better.

 

Again, I cry bullshit.
What makes your argumentation* more valid than Retard's?
And this is directed to everyone who has argued for the religion of Evolution: WHERE THE FUCK ARE THE MISSING LINKS?




*Since you're probably fluent in neo-academic tizeation, I figured that would make you feel at home.

 

WHERE THE FUCK IS GOD?

You question fossil histories and such, at every turn, but you accept without question the the oration, and dictation of old men, and vague and ancient parables. Who were the authors of the bible? Luke? Peter? Etc? Just because Dracula is comprised of letters and journal entries of its characters doesn't mean bram stoker didn't write it. If you want to start demanding missing links, may be you should demand all missing links, not just the ones that piss you off.

Also, don't call evolution a religion you pompous, slut stabbing, lucky shot son of a one nutted greaseball pizza chef.