Just got my Bill Maher tickets

#176
#176
KB5252 said:
Calling religion a destructive fraud is going a little far. If it is not right for you thats fine. But there is as much evidence for the existence of a higher being as there is against it.
Click to expand...

Isn't the whole point of faith that there is no proof? I would love to see evidence presented that proves there is a higher being.
 
#177
#177
utvolpj said:
Isn't the whole point of faith that there is no proof? I would love to see evidence presented that proves there is a higher being.
Click to expand...

Bingo! There is no proof one way or the other.:good!: It is all about what a person chooses to believe.
 
#178
#178
utvolpj said:
Isn't the whole point of faith that there is no proof? I would love to see evidence presented that proves there is a higher being.
Click to expand...
you won't find proof. However, you will find, with some thought, that disbelieving in a higher being requires a very similar leap of faith to the one the believers are making.
 
#179
#179
BigPapaVol said:
you won't find proof. However, you will find, with some thought, that disbelieving in a higher being requires a very similar leap of faith to the one the believers are making.
Click to expand...

No, that's a line of thought to try and convince people that atheists/agnostics are forming their own "religion". The onus is on the person who presents the hypothesis to prove it correct. Turning it around does not work.
 
#180
#180
utvolpj said:
No, that's a line of thought to try and convince people that atheists/agnostics are forming their own "religion". The onus is on the person who presents the hypothesis to prove it correct. Turning it around does not work.
Click to expand...

You cannot prove faith and you cannot measure the soul. Science has yet to explain the mysteries of the human body. Just as it cannot explain the mysteries of the vast expanse we call space.
 
#182
#182
utvolpj said:
Isn't the whole point of faith that there is no proof? I would love to see evidence presented that proves there is a higher being.
Click to expand...

Personally, I'm probably more of a deist than anything else. Based on what I see around me, I conclude that there was/is some greater power. That doesn't conflict with science and I wouldn't really characterize it as "faith". It is my best reasoned working theory.
 
#183
#183
volinbham said:
Personally, I'm probably more of a deist than anything else. Based on what I see around me, I conclude that there was/is some greater power. That doesn't conflict with science and I wouldn't really characterize it as "faith". It is my best reasoned working theory.
Click to expand...

That similar to Einstein?
 
#184
#184
And I have no problem with that. I'm more of a "I will live my life as fair and just as I can but not by the rules in a book and if the big man exists and has issues with the fact I mowed my yard on Sunday morning rather than listen some guy in the pulpit then we can discuss it then" type of guy.
 
#185
#185
volsforever27 said:
Must be lonely on that pedestal. Can you go 5 minutes without putting down half the board?
I'm still waiting to hear about how Obama would be bad for the country, or Hillary. Please continue the rhetoric, it's funny especially at this time of night. I'm still waiting to hear how you know more than an Iraqi general, but if you still disagree with the reasons on going there, that's fine. Saying Bush is an idiot is ok, too. I'm not exactly thrilled with him myself at times, but some of the things you say, although you consider yourself a Libertarian, comes straight from the DNC talking points and are ridiculous. Yes Bush's approval ratings are low, so are the House and Senate, yet I've yet to see you level the insults at them that you have Bush. Is is too much to ask you to be fair in your criticisms? Somehow I think the answer is yes. Just go ahead and say it: you have Bush Derangement Syndrome. Admitting it is the first step in solving the problem. Or am I being too hawkish?
Click to expand...
I'm not a huge fan of Obama's approach to handling the health care system and his seeming belief in the failed idea that flooding a societal woe with federal dollars will cure said woe. From a foreign policy perspective, his experience and record are so limited, it's hard to judge his efficacy in that arena. I do have confidence that he would actually be able to properly pronounce the names of visiting foreign leaders and wouldn't show up on a battleship pretending to be a fighter pilot pronouncing "Mission Accomplished" when the real work of an operation had just begun.

Hillary Clinton would essentially be almost a Bizzaro version of Bush. She's as intelligent as he is imbecilic, but she's also as intractably dogmatic and epically polarizing. As with Obama, she envisions government playing a far greater role in the everyday life of Americans than I find palatable. However, again, I think she is at least intellectually fit for the job.
 
#186
#186
allvol123 said:
Medical research is not inhibited. I agree with you that his reasoning is incorrect. But as a libertarian it would seem you would be all for the government getting out of such areas altogether?
Click to expand...
All ideology must be tempered with pragmatism. There are some projects, be it the defense of our borders or medical research, that the vast resources at the disposal of the federal government almost mandate said government be given a significant role in advancing.
 
#188
#188
hatvol96 said:
All ideology must be tempered with pragmatism. There are some projects, be it the defense of our borders or medical research, that the vast resources at the disposal of the federal government almost mandate said government be given a significant role in advancing.
Click to expand...

I know what you are saying, but that begins a slippery slope in regards to a subject such as medical research. There are loads and loads of medical research that are performed that are crap. Crap because they are not accountable...it is free money. By getting into this arena it gets political. Squeaky wheel gets the grease. I prefer government get out of that business altogether.
 
#190
#190
KB5252 said:
You cannot prove faith and you cannot measure the soul. Science has yet to explain the mysteries of the human body. Just as it cannot explain the mysteries of the vast expanse we call space.
Click to expand...

There is nothing inheritantly divine about the currently unknown. Think about how much new knowledge has been researched, calculated, measured, and formulated in the last twenty years alone. It is asinine to imply that a mystery is evidence of anything spiritual in and of itself.
 
#191
#191
IPorange said:
There is nothing inheritantly divine about the currently unknown. Think about how much new knowledge has been researched, calculated, measured, and formulated in the last twenty years alone. It is asinine to imply that a mystery is evidence of anything spiritual in and of itself.
Click to expand...

I would agree with that to a great extent. Assigning divine characteristics to the unknown is what people from ancient times did for things like the Sun. I actually take an opposite tact. For me, the proof of God is that there is such order. I can't fathom that the world we live in is completely the result of happenstance.
 
#192
#192
GAVol said:
I would agree with that to a great extent. Assigning divine characteristics to the unknown is what people from ancient times did for things like the Sun. I actually take an opposite tact. For me, the proof of God is that there is such order. I can't fathom that the world we live in is completely the result of happenstance.
Click to expand...

:hi:
 
#193
#193
IPorange said:
There is nothing inheritantly divine about the currently unknown. Think about how much new knowledge has been researched, calculated, measured, and formulated in the last twenty years alone. It is asinine to imply that a mystery is evidence of anything spiritual in and of itself.
Click to expand...


I never said it was. There is so little known about space. And for every step forward we take a step back. We come up with a theory that is plausible and then after years of study we come to find that we have to back track and rework that theory or toss it out altogether. My point is that it has not been able to disprove a supreme being. there is no evidence for or against.
 
#194
#194
GAVol said:
I would agree with that to a great extent. Assigning divine characteristics to the unknown is what people from ancient times did for things like the Sun. I actually take an opposite tact. For me, the proof of God is that there is such order. I can't fathom that the world we live in is completely the result of happenstance.
Click to expand...

Good point! We happen to be in just the right place in an arm of the milky way for life. We just happen to be placed the right distance from the sun for life. The earth just happens to be tilted to an angle that best suits life. You can go on and on. I would point out that things like that just don't happen by chance.
 
#195
#195
allvol123 said:
There are loads and loads of medical research that are performed that are crap. Crap because they are not accountable...it is free money.
Click to expand...

I thought the issue was less about whether the government funds stem cell research but whether it was allowed to happen at all.

Regardless, using the logic above, you should feel the same way about the national missile defense system - something that hasn't been proven necessary or functional but has cost taxpayers a whole lot more than stem cell research has or ever will.

It is the single largest line item in the Pentagon's budget (more than $10 billion a year), has been tested numerous times over the past 25 years with nominal (at best) success, and is still not ready to be deployed.

And it is designed to protect us from a threat that, at my best count, we've only encountered once (Cuban Missile Crisis) - and that never came to fruition.
 
#196
#196
TennNC said:
I thought the issue was less about whether the government funds stem cell research but whether it was allowed to happen at all.

Regardless, using the logic above, you should feel the same way about the national missile defense system - something that hasn't been proven necessary or functional but has cost taxpayers a whole lot more than stem cell research has or ever will.

It is the single largest line item in the Pentagon's budget (more than $10 billion a year), has been tested numerous times over the past 25 years with nominal (at best) success, and is still not ready to be deployed.

And it is designed to protect us from a threat that, at my best count, we've only encountered once (Cuban Missile Crisis) - and that never came to fruition.
Click to expand...

the wars on drugs and poverty have cost much more and yielded similarly "nominal" results.

At least the missile defense shield has a purpose.
 
#197
#197
TennNC said:
I thought the issue was less about whether the government funds stem cell research but whether it was allowed to happen at all.

Regardless, using the logic above, you should feel the same way about the national missile defense system - something that hasn't been proven necessary or functional but has cost taxpayers a whole lot more than stem cell research has or ever will.

It is the single largest line item in the Pentagon's budget (more than $10 billion a year), has been tested numerous times over the past 25 years with nominal (at best) success, and is still not ready to be deployed.

And it is designed to protect us from a threat that, at my best count, we've only encountered once (Cuban Missile Crisis) - and that never came to fruition.
Click to expand...


You kill me at times...... Nuclear annihilation only takes once..............

:blink:
 
#200
#200
TennNC said:
Do you think I support the war on drugs?
Click to expand...

I don't really care if you do or don't. I was just pointing out that the government has wasted far more money trying to fix social ills than it ever has, or will, on a weapons platform.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top