Kerry has conceded

I know I'm late getting back to the party, but back when y'all were talking religion there was an undercurrent to the discussion that it was the atheists/agnostics/etc vs the christains.

As if there were really only two choices - God or No God.

It reminded me of a somewhat famous philosophical argument known as "Pascal's Wager" named for Blaise Pascal, the mathematician. In very simple terms, Pascal's Wager goes thus, "If there is a God, you gain everything by believing in Him. If there is no God, you lose nothing by believing in him."

The big problem with all such arguments, including the quote from CS Lewis and particularly any attempt to define absolute right and wrong by Christian dogma is that there is a third choice, or rather an almost infinite number of other choices - Islam, Hinduism, Bhuddism, even Chinese folk religion to name a few of the ones with larger numbers of adherents. Even within the umbrella of Christianity there is signficant divergence of opinion about the details - for example, Mormons differ significantly from Catholics.

So, I thought it might interesting to get a global perspective on the demographics of religion:


http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.gif

More info, including the projection that by 2025 the proportion of Christians will have decreased to about 25% with Islam making up for the majority of that loss, is available by clicking on the image

Random CS Lewis factoid: Most people don't know this, but Treebeard the Ent in Tolkein's Lord of the Rings was intended to be a cariacature of CS Lewis.

And finally, whatever faith you believe in (or not believe in for the aetheist types), it's called "faith" for a reason. Faith is something you believe in but can not prove. Consquently, any arguments or justifications based on faith can not prove anything either. Such arguments can convince or sway people, but ultimately it all boils down to believing in the unprovable.

Wow, just when the conversation started to get intelligent again (about three pages back), we've digressed into pointless chatter again (except for maybe Wyrrej's post). Someone mentioned something about it being hypocritical for someone to say closed-minded people should have closed mouths. I think the point is that it's not interesting or a valuable use of your time to listen to close minded people because they will rarely have any truth or valuable insight to share with you. If they are too close minded to consider your opinion, then how could they possibly be enlightened about anything?

I also feel compelled to clear up a few things:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by valenki
1. we didnt really liberate Afganistan, we have somewhat liberated Kabul, the capital by giving them as much alcohol and money as they need. Every day in Afganistan in villages and smaller cities us military dump trucks are giving away money and boose to all who wish for it to keep the peace.

Dude, what are you talking about? Most Muslims don't drink alcohol, and 99% of the military is forbidden from drinking while deployed. The people in the villages are more likely to chew Nestar or smoke opium. The only people I ever saw drinking were a handful of civilian employees in a single small restaurant opened in Kabul. I've never seen any money "given away".

5. When Soviets occupied Afghanistan, they built schools, markets, hospitals dambs, communicatoins and other things. Their forces were spread throughout Afghanistan, US forces are mostly in Kabul.

The last half of that statement is simply not true. There is no military base inside Kabul.

MOST IMPORTANTLY: Iraq didnt have WMD's but other countries do or about to have them and they hate US: Iran, North Korea and other axes of evil. Let me remind you that they ahve not signed the Nuclear non-preliferation treaty meaning they can sell nuclear bombs to anyone: Usama, Zarqawi or Homer Sompson for that matter. One of those explodes over Washington DC, LA, NY, Boston, we'r done.

WMD's include chemical and biological weapons which Iraq did have. It was not unreasonable to think that Iraq might also possess (or be attempting to aquire) nuclear capabilities. However, it's unlikely that one would explode over a U.S. city because they don't possess the long range delivery systems necessary for that. Nuclear weapons in the middle east would be a much greater threat to other countries in the middle east, or in Western countries in the form of "dirty bombs".

---

VICTORY- VICTORY- VICTORY

In the words of my grandchildren

SWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEET- AWESOMMMME

This in no way should interrupt your right to WHINE- WHIMPER- or
FLEE TO CANADA.


Bob F

interminable onslaught of offal

When I made my first post I made it clear that I didnt wish to empose my opinion on enyone and didnt expect my opinion to be craped on either.

Let me clear something up also. Not all Afghans are rightious Muslims. Some of them started drinking After other cultures brought alchoholism to them; British occupiers then Russian, Americam ext. Also, I had heard this fact personally from someone who was there soon after the US invasion and saw this. If you do your research you will find out that in Iran this is a big problem but drinking is underground.

Also, A nuke can be transported on a passanger or commercial airplane and triggered in the sky over a city where it will do most damage or in a container on a ship, if it would be triggered in the water it will affect a mutch larger area.

Now about Nukes and WMD in Iraq. They did use biologicall artillery shells against their own people and might have had more but turns out they didn't. NEXT AND MOST IMPORTANT Sadam never had nukes, he wanted to make them in the 80's but in 86 Israelis destroyed his nuclear plant and refinery before he had a chance to make nukes.

YOU DO NOT NEED A NUKE TO MAKE A DIRTY BOMB. This is a fact. You can go to your local hospital and find radioactive materials and plenty of them stuff them in a shoe bomb with a grenade and you have a radioactive bomb. The worst about dirty bombs as they are known is that they will poison the environment around them for a long time.

5 regimes MUCH more dangerous than Sadam's:
North Korea
Iran
Syria
Turkmenistan
Belarus

Why? All of them have WMD's in one form or another widely available on the black market. N.Korea even has a missile capable to reach the US West Coast. Yet the US Government chose Iraq.

I am not for or against Bush or Kerry, I am speaking facts as I see them, you might see them differently.

So please don't piss on my opinion I have my own reasons to make conclusions. I appreciate people who will read this.

Three reasons why Texas supported Bush:

Oil production (don't bite the hand.......), guns (you can have my gun when..............damn yankees :) ). A growing contingent of immigrants from south of the border who threw their support his way.
-------

Yes, Iraq did have wmd's. Guess how we know this. ;) As was mentioned earlier our past international meddling has and will probably continue to come back and bite us in the arse.

-------


Condi Rice? Loved her method of avoiding answering questions while being deposed by the congressional committee. Kinda reminded me of the good ol' contra days.

--------
Hey, all the pols at the top of the food chain are long ago bought and paid for. In our recent senate race it was mentioned that it cost a cool $10 mil just to get name recognition for Alan Keyes.

Where's an honest, average American gonna come up with a disposable down stroke like that?

All we can do is hope our elected officials don't screw up too badly, and if they do, get rid of them.

I'll have to side with the U.K.'s "Daily Mirror" on this one.

Download the front page here:

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/docs/M...C328EC0000.pdf

Have a nice day, my friends :) !

I've been staying pretty much out of this conversation, but that that pie chart is rediculous.

Taking into consideration that China and India contain 2/5ths of the world's population, how could that chart be right?

-- John

Mmm lots of great posts, from republicans, democrats and everybody else, lots of surprising posts, and some less nice ones!
But I think, that for such a "sensitive" topic, this forum members did quiet well..thumbs up for that!

I was a bit disappointed by some sentences though, words which I think don't belong in this era, and definetely not in a forum which is dedicated to such a progressive vehicle.... :(

Quote:

---

I think that Homosexuality is wrong and I support laws that protect the sanctity of marriage as being between a man and a woman.

---

Homosexuality is....wrong???

Quote:

---

I just find it ironic that the homosexual community wants a ceremony of God to be applied to their union when the Bible clearly states that it is an abomination. If they do not believe in God, then why do they want to use one of its sacraments???

---

The gay community never asked for church weddings..just normal weddings. Marriage is not a sacred institute, it's man made.
It's a symbol of two people who love each other , and want to spend the rest of their lives together.
Marriage has advantages, provided by the state and society, tax, loans etc.
Denying gay people the right to marry, is denying their existence.
They were born gay, like some people are born caucasian, others dark...nothing they you or anybody else can do about.
Not less than 50 years ago, it was found unacceptable for an coloured person to marry a white person..now in 2004 it's normal.....it's called evolution of humanity and acceptence!

Quote:

---

Also, I was involved personally with a gay community in Portland, Oregon (one of the reasons I left). They ganged up on my nephew and convinced him that he was gay and sexually assaulted him several times. Before this time he was a little feminine (but so was I when I was his age) and liked to dress nicely. That does not make one gay... What they did was wrong. If someone chooses to be gay of their own free will and volition - then fine - but why do you have to attack someone in a group? They even told him that they were "recruiters!!!"

---

In the same matter of thinking then...if some group of man ganged up on your niece, you'd blame all male hetero sexuals?

"God created all men equal...but some more than others"

Quote:

---

Abortion - hmm - killing a baby is ok because??? Pro-choice? Couching murder in friendly terms does not change the nature of the crime. How would you have liked it if someone had terminated your life before you were born? What about the baby's choice? Did you ask the baby before killing it? If you do not want to have a baby, practice abstinence. I have personally known women who were convinced to perform abortions and they went slightly cuckoo afterwards...

---

Nothing is black and white like that:
What right has a person, to tell a twelve year old girl not to abort her baby?
What right has a person, to tell a raped woman that she has to keep that baby?
What right has a person, to tell a..... shall I continue?

Yeah the Bush administration and many of its followers follow the bible, unfortunately they love to skip parts, especially the new testament, for their own convenience and political agenda.
Everytime that man, takes the word god in his mouth. the insult spreads...

Your gay, hetero, transexual, transvestite, euthanasia, save well thought out abortians loving minister,

Dutchie

Several good well thought out points Dutchie.

I agree, it really irks me that some religious types (some) seem to want to claim marriage the institution as part of their judeo-christian religion exclusively. This goes to the heart of many of their other arguments as well. They are so deep in a forest of dogma and unflinching faith that some (some again) of them can't separate ideas and customs from their belief systems. They won't even often admit that their religion IS a belief system.

And just because people are in the majority (if they are) doesn't mean they should be able to interfere with another group's pursuit of happiness (if it is not hurting anyone) simply because they feel it is "wrong".

The courts (I beleive)should protect the rights of the minority in these instances, striking down laws the majority passes that discriminate against minority lifestyles that are not hurting anything, except perhaps some folks idea about what american culture should be.

If so called activist courts hadn't stood up boldly for minority rights in the 50s and early 60s the whole civil rights movement would have never gotten rolling. We would probably still have governments in the south passing laws discriminating against blacks.

You would think everyone would want our homosexual citizens to be faithful, monogomous, responsible homeowners and raise families. Encouraging marriage would surely encourage healthy settled families.

In my mind this would only benefit communities. I have two sets of gay neighbors and they are probably the best, most decent citizens on my block. ;Dp;

Valenki -

The first part of my post wasn't directed against you at all. My apologies if it appeared that way. I'm certainly not arguing with your opinion, just disputing a few of your facts.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by valenki
Let me clear something up also. Not all Afghans are rightious Muslims. Some of them started drinking After other cultures brought alchoholism to them; British occupiers then Russian, Americam ext. Also, I had heard this fact personally from someone who was there soon after the US invasion and saw this. If you do your research you will find out that in Iran this is a big problem but drinking is underground.

True, not all Afghans are righteous Muslims. However under the Taliban regime, many were forced to follow the teachings whether they agreed with them or not. There may be a growing community of underground drinkers with their newfound freedom, but the military certainly isn't bringing in "dump trucks full of money and booze".

Also, A nuke can be transported on a passanger or commercial airplane and triggered in the sky over a city where it will do most damage or in a container on a ship, if it would be triggered in the water it will affect a mutch larger area.

Good point...

5 regimes MUCH more dangerous than Sadam's:
North Korea
Iran
Syria
Turkmenistan
Belarus

Why? All of them have WMD's in one form or another widely available on the black market. N.Korea even has a missile capable to reach the US West Coast. Yet the US Government chose Iraq.

Are you suggesting that these countries should be next on the hit list? Bush certainly has his eyes on the first two. However, I don't think the only factor being considered is whether they have access to black market WMD. I believe more important is how likely they are to use them in the near future. Sadaam had already shown his willingness to use WMD, as well as invade neighboring countries. This is what pushed him to the top of the list, as well as him thumbing his nose at the international community by denying access to the U.N. Inspectors.

---

Again, I'm not into pissing on people's opinions. I would just prefer to have an intelligent discussion and it's almost laughable how much worthless chatter keeps getting inserted into what could be a good topic of discussion.

Marriage is not man-made - it is founded in religion. In the distant past, marriages did not provide tax breaks. There were morals back then and if two people were together and had a child, that child was termed a bastard. If you do not believe in God and therefore do not believe in chastity, adultery or fornication, there is no need for marriage. Please do some research and you will find that the original ceremony was a covenant between two people and God. Man has taken this ceremony and secularized it.

I did not condemn all homosexuals when I talked about the recruiters in Portland. I have a very good friend that is gay and he never attempts to recruit others. I know there are good and bad in all groups of people. I also have another gay friend who is a performer on Broadway and he is also very kind and never forces himself on another.

Abortion makes people see things crazy, somehow...

**************************
What right has a person, to tell a twelve year old girl not to abort her baby?
**************************

The same right that person has to tell a twelve year old girl not to murder her brother.

**************************
What right has a person, to tell a raped woman that she has to keep that baby?
**************************

I never talked about this scenario. Obviously this is a rare case and one which would perhaps warrant an exception as it was not her choice to get pregnant. However, I would strongly urge anyone in this situation to have the baby and put it up for adoption.

Please, let's all be reasonable and think about others before doing anything or saying anything we may regret later.

Brent

Quote:

---

Please, let's all be reasonable and think about others before doing anything or saying anything we may regret later.

---

I apologize if it was I who offended you. If I did not respect your opinions I would not bother even visiting here, reading them, and disagreeing.

And I do disagree with the marriage and God thing. While it is true that in certain religions there have been marriage ceremonies for thousands of years, the concept of marriage has assuredly existed since man was a hunter gatherer (and I also anticipate and respect that you may reject this as well). There was probably no concept of "God" with a big "G" in those days. Yet people teamed up in couples as husband and wife.

Judeo christianity cannot lay exclusive claim to the concept of marriage. Only to the concept of marriage inside the limited and fairly recent bounds of judeo-christianity.

And in my mind the whole point is moot because to say that something has always been some way, therefore it should always stay that way, doesn't make any sense. Many folks make this argument about the founding fathers. They would probably have had very different ideas about things (such as gun control) if they lived in our age assault weapons and drive-bys.

We just have to use our own minds and do the best we can in our own ages. It will soon (already is actually) be possible for a lesbian couple to parent children without a man. This is certain to become fairly common. Homosexual men will use a surrogate mother to parent children that are truely theirs. (half of each of them). Heterosexuals also will soon probably have some of their children through genetic enginneering, not natural sex (yikes!).

Shouldn't our culture and laws evolve to take advantage of these new developments?

We should press boldly forward, not hesitate to change, and not be afraid as our culture and biology changes and grows.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by tiggergreen
There were morals back then and if two people were together and had a child, that child was termed a bastard. If you do not believe in God and therefore do not believe in chastity, adultery or fornication, there is no need for marriage.

---

I think it's funny ("close minded") that many who believe in God think that those who don't have no morals.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by tiggergreen
I did not condemn all homosexuals when I talked about the recruiters in Portland. I have a very good friend that is gay and he never attempts to recruit others.

---

This is hilarious. Homosexuals recruiting the heteros! Wow, keep ME away! I know, it has to be tough to keep yourself from going Gay! Is it a Portland thing or a liberal (progressive) thing? It's neither. I have no doubt you either did see someone trying to recruit a heterosexual to be a homosexual, or at least think you did... no matter what happened that night I DO live in Portland (came from Texas mind you) and live around at least 3 homosexual couples... within a few houses of each. We have gotten to know a couple of ladies very well. They are the nicest people we know here. I have actually left my wife around them for an extended period of time and, you know what... she's still straight AND she wasn't abused! Imagine that! Not only are there homosexuals that do mean things but straight people do to!

It's just so amazing to me that this country is so split on homosexual marriage rights.

A few more comments on some of the other topics:

The Pie Chart: Yeah, you've got to wonder how accurate something like that could ever be. Like one person mentioned, China accounts for a big chunk of the world's population, but as a nation their official religion is Atheist (as is the case with all Communist governments). At one point China had the world's largest Buddhist population, some estimates putting it at around 300 million. That would at least double the percentage of Buddhists in the world (which in some cases shouldn't even be considered a religion, but that's a whole 'nother topic).

Homosexuality: I think one of the major topics of disagreement is whether it is a choice or if people are born homosexual. I personally believe that it's a choice, but whatever two consenting adults want to do in the privacy of their own home is none of my business as long as it's not hurting anyone else. I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be allowed to have a legal marriage if they so choose, however, there are some issues that come along with that which a lot of people aren't comfortable with. I don't see why they shouldn't get some of the benefits of marriage (i.e., tax breaks, health insurance, etc), but I don't support the idea of homosexual couples adopting children. I just don't see how a child could grow up with two moms or two dads in a homosexual union and not be a little bit screwed up. Throughout my life I've met and known a sufficient number of gays to form the idea that although many of them lead pretty decent, well-adjusted lives, most of them (at least the folks I've known) have some very deep emotional problems. This may of course be due to a lifetime of hurt inflicted by closed minded family, friends, and society, but it's true none the less. If someone chooses this path for themselves in their search for happiness, so be it. But I would rather not subject a child to the same issues if it wasn't his/her choice.

As for marriage not being man made, well, that's an opinion. It's my opinion that religion is man-made, therefore marriage is man-made. And regardless, there are plenty of non-religious people out there who choose to unite with another person for personal and legal reasons. In today's society there IS a need for marriage and to non-religious folks, it has nothing to do with your God.

Quote:

---

I have actually left my wife around them for an extended period of time ...

---

Dude! You didn't!!!!?

Oh man you are so scr@wed. Tickle-fights in their underwear surely ensued. (my heterosexual male biased view of the lesbian community) LOL