Well, according to the dictionary:

dict.org

Atheism \A"the*ism\, n. [Cf. F. ath['e]isme. See Atheist.]
1. The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or
supreme intelligent Being.

merriam-webster.com

Definition of ATHEISM
1archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

a·the·ism   /ˈeɪθiˌɪzəm/ Show Spelled
[ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA

dictionary.reference.com

–noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

The definition of atheism is very clear; the belief that there is no God. If you don't really believe that, IE .0001 percent, then you're not an atheist. You can't just reinvent the definition so you have no burden of proof. That .0001 might as well be 99 percent for all the difference it makes. Personally, I think the definitions people are trying to use today for atheism are extremely intellectually dishonest.
>> ^TheSluiceGate:
>> ^shinyblurry:
<em>>> <a rel="nofollow" href='http://videosift.com/video/God-does-exist-Testimony-from-an-ex-atheist?loadcomm=1#comment-1200441'>^criticalthud</a>:<br />@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since January 21st, 2011" href="http://videosift.com/member/shinyblurry">shinyblurry</A><BR>Actually, atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist. Look it up in a dictionary sometime. A lack of belief, ie, you don't know, would be agnosticism. An atheist is saying he does know there isn't a God, which is a leap of faith, considering there is no evidence to the contrary.
Personally, I think it takes more faith to be an atheist. If you ever feel like challenging your beliefs, which is what anyone who is seeking the truth should do
Good point shinyblurry, but....
Atheism is not a statement of a claim that there is no god - it is the rejection of the proposition made by theists that they believe there is a god. Atheism does not assume any positive claim of the non-existence of a god. A statement like this requires proof, and proving a negative statement is impossible ( http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=You_can%27t_prove_a_negative ) which is why the statement "I am 100% sure there is no God" is just as irrational as a 100% belief in a god.
Dawkins put this well on his "belief scale" which (quoting from another site) goes something like as follows:
1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.
Dawkins describes himself as a 6.999999 as he knows that being a 7 on this scale would be just as illogical and rational as being a 1.
It doesn't take any faith to be an atheist. Let me explain like this: A theist makes a claim that god exists and that they have proof. They present the proof to an atheist. The atheist takes on board the claim, does research of their own, tests the proposition being made by the theist (presuming it is possible to do so - and logically if it cannot be tested, it cannot be presented as evidence!), and comes to a conclusion of whether or not they believe the claim being made as to the existence of a god. If they reject the claim they remain atheist. If not, they become a theist. There is no faith required in being an atheist.
This video doesn't really offer any proof, as it is one man's personal, untestable, experience.
Therefore I remain atheist.

Your argument is faulty by your own standard of morality and voting

1.
Capitalism is neither moral or immoral.
It's a self interested venture with the sole intent of maximizing profit. full stop.
It's amoral.

b : lacking moral sensibility

2.
Voting doesn't mean shit.
In 2000, Al Gore won the popular for President.

Why was Al Gore never president, bobknight?
That's who the people voted for in 2000, but that's not the government we got.

Explain these things Bobknight please. No response? Cognitive dissonance much?

I know it's tough to admit your beliefs are illusions at first.
It gets easier once you know there are people who are here to support you. =]

[ http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/amoral ]
[ http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html ]

p.s. - C. Wright. Power Elite. look it up. learn things bobknight
>> ^bobknight33:

How could anyone listen to this and not puke?
Capitalism is a good thing. Capitalism with out morals is a bad thing.
We have the government that we have now because that's what the people voted for.

I thought for sure she she would come down on him - I've never seen her frustrated to the point where she just ends it and walks out. I thought maybe she would call him on the drugs - I wonder what happened behind closed doors afterward -- hold him in contempt!??



con·tempt
   /kənˈtɛmpt/ Show Spelled[kuhn-tempt] Show IPA
–noun
1. the feeling with which a person regards anything considered mean, vile, or worthless; disdain; scorn.
2. the state of being despised; dishonor; disgrace.
3. Law .
a. willful disobedience to or open disrespect for the rules or orders of a court (contempt of court) or legislative body.
b. an act showing such disrespect.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/contempt

Hehehe careful, he might call you a fascist like he did me! I was thinking something along the same lines though, but not something like a poll test...those are usually used for exclusionary reasons. I was thinking something more in line with a community gesture. I don't mind people having a vote that aren't necessarily smart in areas. What I find a problem is that most people do not vote. In fact, the lowest voting demographic are the lowest earners: the lowest 20% earners have a 36.4% turn out. Those people are basically under represented in democracy. There are many reasons why this is the case, but the most important reasons is that it doesn't hold much value in peoples minds. I have come to imagine that this is because it is "free", and something free has little value in your mind. After the wheels of the government have been spinning for so long, I think there is a complacence that comes over the voting population.

If you look at this data, it doesn't look good. Voter turn out from 1824 - 2008 has been on a jumpy decline. And even at its best, at 75% or so, that is still not a majority vote when a vote is achieved (50% of 75% = 37.5%). My idea was to have some sort of event, some sort of right of passage if you will so that not voting would seem like you wasted that old time back in the past and add as an extra motivation factor in fighting against government corruption. Also, it takes the arbitrary nature of birth out of the equations, and only people willing to make a small sacrifice would get those extra set of rights that we all take for granted now.

This is all just a thought experiment at this point, I think it has a lot of merit though, the same with your idea as well. As with any, there are pitfalls and things that you don't anticipate. Most assuredly, my system wasn't to exclude poor people, in fact, in the example I was drawing from, the poor people had the highest voter turn out...for the rich it wasn't worth the time to earn the right to vote. Then again, wealth shouldn't have anything to do with your right structure, only that persons commitment to be a good citizen, however he chooses to do so.


In reply to this comment by sillma:
I would test peoples knowledge of politics, finance and such to see if they're capable of understanding what they're voting for, I'd expect around 5-10% of the population to pass it. After heavy studying of course.

After much thought and consideration, I don't come to the same conclusion. Let me take the situation we have here in the USA.

Voting is relatively easy here in the US, the biggest obstacle are lines, and the will to stand in said line. Yet, at best you can expect for an average national election is 40%. In that, 100% are bound by that 40%. And of that 40%, you only need majority in most cases to pass legislation. Let us say of that 40% that voted, it was perfectly partisan; 20% red, 20% blue. This would mean that at best in most instances, 100% of us are bound by what 20% of people have said.

Making voting easy has seemingly cheapened it in peoples minds, I think. And my conjecture is that is because you never really "op in" to being a voter in any significant way. There is never a time where one commits himself to his country, and his country to him. There is no right of passage other than age. This is the connection I am seeking to create in my mind. Where there is a true act of commitment by both parties to one another, and that imbibes a since of responsibility and worth.

There is a problem of who manages the rights of the non-citizens, but that is a problem we already have with resident aliens and such. This would just be taking that idea to a new level. There are lots of ins and outs to manage in my theoretical construct, but they are by no means insurmountable, or poise any real problems of liberty any more than a person who chooses not to vote does now. My point is being born is arbitrary. Making a choice to partake in a social contract isn't implicit, or explicit in birth. What I am proposing bears much in common with the confederation in Star Ship troopers if you have ever read it. While I think I would discourage military as a main means for obtaining citizenship, I think citizens would be highly motivated to make their country free from corruption because of the investment they made with time, sweat and blood, personally.

In reply to this comment by mgittle:
My reply to gwiz dealt with your post as well. Really, I should have combined or separated them for more clarity. My bad, you're right, it does look like I was saying you agreed with the property rights thing, and the @ to you should have probably been in the second one along with the one for gwiz.

However, I stand by my opinion that voting needs to be easier instead of harder, and governments don't need more power to disenfranchise people. If we want better results, we need a more informed and educated public or a different form of governing ourselves. Like I said, I agree with the sentiment you and others are expressing, and restricting voting is a logical solution, but I think there are many unforeseeable and unintended consequences in implementing tests/classes/etc for voting. See my comments in that thread about corruption, etc.

Regarding birth in a country giving you specific rights, well, that's just how it happens to work culturally, right? I mean, if you look objectively at the concept of countries, they're automatically going to be fairly arbitrary simply due to the lack of choice in being born. Historically, it was and easy way of determining citizenship in a world where lines on a map could help you determine a lot. In today's world, those lines are all blurred, and technology gives us all sorts of options for keeping records, administering tests, etc. So, we have new options and there's nothing wrong with thinking out loud about that.

Ok, so for everyone who screams, "stupid", lets examine the meaning of the word, shall we? Taking for granted that when used above the sentiment was the adjective utilization of the word to convey meaning:( For the sake of those without a dictionary or adequate command of the full battery of tools available to those seeking to communicate with other English speaking people in the world with a working knowledge of the same, heres a quicky form the first hit when typing the word into a search engine:

stu·pid
   /ˈstupɪd, ˈstyu‐/ Show Spelled [stoo-pid, styoo‐] Show IPA adjective, -er, -est, noun

1.lacking ordinary quickness and keenness of mind; dull. (not these kids, eh??-They show both keenness and quickness of mind and that out of the ordinary hence, their confidence in execution, regardless as someone above so observed of their mate's taunts and/or encouragements, I don't speak fucking Russian, i don't know, you don't either!)
2.
characterized by or proceeding from mental dullness; foolish; senseless: a stupid question.

Not so, as evidenced in their balsy showcase of skills, camera in hand.
3.
tediously dull, esp. due to lack of meaning or sense; inane; pointless: a stupid party.
Not this one either, Officer Judgement.
4.
annoying or irritating; troublesome: Turn off that stupid radio.

Perhaps. This would fall into the category of a personal problem.
5.
in a state of stupor; stupefied: stupid from fatigue.

Nope. Can't be stupefied or fatigued to do something a window cleaner or hi-rise welder would do everyday, not unlike a lady walking her doggy.
6.
Slang . excellent; terrific.

Well hell, pinrods...Use that one in a sentence and see if you are not living vicariously through these wonderful human beings, not afraid to live life, and embrace to the fullest their desires and otherwise get outside and exercise, rather than masturbating, for example, on their computer(s)

First of all, you HOST the World Cup, it is a privilege countries FIGHT for. You host this for an estimated viewership of 2 BILLION PEOPLE, almost 1/3rd of the WORLD'S POPULATION. When you accept the responsibility to host a World Cup, you INVITE the world to your country.

Second of all, when your local culture completely and utterly destroys the culture of football (as the rest of the world understands it), the common decency would be to understand this and accommodate the world and football before your own local interests, you are a HOST, good hosts put their VISTORS before themselves.

Third of all, reducing viewership is basically tying your own noose. Pissing off advertisers is never a wise move, the World Cup is no more immune to this than any other event.

Fourth of all, generally you're supposed to highlight your country's strengths and tourism when you host such an event. Not turn off millions of people from even considering a visit, all from one very silly over-bearing issue. Do you really want your country's image tarnished from a little fucking plastic horn? I hear virtually nothing about South Africa, all I heard in the Beijing Olympics was "China great host this", "China great host that".

Fifth of all, if you don't watch football (even just for the World Cup), please shut the fuck up, as you have no appreciation for the issue at hand. I'm sick of tolerance nazi's butting in to the discussion with no appreciation of the complaint, all you can do is scream blue murder.

Many South African comments are in the nature of "This is OUR World Cup, if you don't like it, leave/don't watch!". Yes well people are taking those options and if the numbers are big enough; The only thing that's going to hurt is African nations holding the World Cup in the future. Both in selection and future attendance.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Sigh:
tra·di·tion   [truh-dish-uhn] Show IPA –noun
1. the handing down of statements, beliefs, legends, customs, information, etc., from generation to generation, esp. by word of mouth or by practice
2. something that is handed down
3. a long-established or inherited way of thinking or acting
You were saying about old? You don't have to tell people how to enjoy it, but they shouldn't expect anything else on the world stage to ever go back until they shut the fuck up.
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^harry:
It's the fucking vuvuzela. South Africa pretends it's tradition, but it's apparently something that was ivented about 30 years ago, I guess by a marketing dude.
It's a monotonous buzzing that continues for the full 90 minutes. Some channels (like the BBC) appear to manage their sound levels reasonably, but the Dutch broadcasters have been unable to cope, and the commentators are frequently drowned out.
I don't like football as it is, but this makes it totally impossible to even watch it in the background. I'll just count the number of cheers and cries in the street when Oranje is on.

Yes South Africa...collectively as a country is pretending that they like something as a tradition. Firstly it doesn't have to be old for it to be a tradition. Secondly you can't tell people how to enjoy a game in their own fucking country, so shut the fuck up.


A father buys a vuvuzela at a game...he hands it down to his son...now it's tradition. You mother fuckers think you can go into another fucking country MOVE out the indigenous population and set up a soccer tournament and then tell the locals how to fucking behave. You're simply what's wrong with the fucking world trying to force others to conform to your standards...for what? So you can watch a bunch of little games on TV while you sit on your fat fucking ass. Fuck you, you don't deserve to live.

>> ^Sigh:

tra·di·tion   [truh-dish-uhn] Show IPA –noun
1. the handing down of statements, beliefs, legends, customs, information, etc., from generation to generation, esp. by word of mouth or by practice
2. something that is handed down
3. a long-established or inherited way of thinking or acting
You were saying about old? You don't have to tell people how to enjoy it, but they shouldn't expect anything else on the world stage to ever go back until they shut the fuck up.
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^harry:
It's the fucking vuvuzela. South Africa pretends it's tradition, but it's apparently something that was ivented about 30 years ago, I guess by a marketing dude.
It's a monotonous buzzing that continues for the full 90 minutes. Some channels (like the BBC) appear to manage their sound levels reasonably, but the Dutch broadcasters have been unable to cope, and the commentators are frequently drowned out.
I don't like football as it is, but this makes it totally impossible to even watch it in the background. I'll just count the number of cheers and cries in the street when Oranje is on.

Yes South Africa...collectively as a country is pretending that they like something as a tradition. Firstly it doesn't have to be old for it to be a tradition. Secondly you can't tell people how to enjoy a game in their own fucking country, so shut the fuck up.



A father buys a vuvuzela at a game...he hands it down to his son...now it's tradition. You mother fuckers think you can go into another fucking country MOVE out the indigenous population and set up a soccer tournament and then tell the locals how to fucking behave. You're simply what's wrong with the fucking world trying to force others to conform to your standards...for what? So you can watch a bunch of little games on TV while you sit on your fat fucking ass. Fuck you, you don't deserve to live.

tra·di·tion   [truh-dish-uhn] Show IPA –noun

1. the handing down of statements, beliefs, legends, customs, information, etc., from generation to generation, esp. by word of mouth or by practice

2. something that is handed down

3. a long-established or inherited way of thinking or acting

You were saying about old? You don't have to tell people how to enjoy it, but they shouldn't expect anything else on the world stage to ever go back until they shut the fuck up.
>> ^Yogi:

>> ^harry:
It's the fucking vuvuzela. South Africa pretends it's tradition, but it's apparently something that was ivented about 30 years ago, I guess by a marketing dude.
It's a monotonous buzzing that continues for the full 90 minutes. Some channels (like the BBC) appear to manage their sound levels reasonably, but the Dutch broadcasters have been unable to cope, and the commentators are frequently drowned out.
I don't like football as it is, but this makes it totally impossible to even watch it in the background. I'll just count the number of cheers and cries in the street when Oranje is on.

Yes South Africa...collectively as a country is pretending that they like something as a tradition. Firstly it doesn't have to be old for it to be a tradition. Secondly you can't tell people how to enjoy a game in their own fucking country, so shut the fuck up.

Their Hardcore IPA is hard enough to drink... this must taste awful. I'd be willing to find out empirically, of course.

A cheeseburger and a strong IPA, that's all I'll ever need.

rogue
  /roʊg/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [rohg] Show IPA noun, verb, rogued, ro⋅guing, adjective
–noun
1. a dishonest, knavish person; scoundrel.
2. a playfully mischievous person; scamp
3. a tramp or vagabond.
4. a rogue elephant or other animal of similar disposition.
5. Biology. a usually inferior organism
–verb (used without object)
6. to live or act as a rogue.
–verb (used with object)
7. to cheat.
8. to uproot or destroy (plants, etc., that do not conform to a desired standard).



It's all in her book's title. What are these people bitching for?

To: Winstonfield_Pennypacker-

lib⋅er⋅ty
  /ˈlɪbərti/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [lib-er-tee] Show IPA
–noun, plural -ties.
1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
2. freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.
3. freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.
4. freedom from captivity, confinement, or physical restraint: The prisoner soon regained his liberty.
5. permission granted to a sailor, esp. in the navy, to go ashore.
6. freedom or right to frequent or use a place: The visitors were given the liberty of the city.
7. unwarranted or impertinent freedom in action or speech, or a form or instance of it: to take liberties.

Too me, not being afforded the same rights heterosexuals are given, is interference by the government. And while gays getting married might offend people with hardcore religious views, it certainly wouldn't violate their liberty.

If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until it's free


I live in a country where it IS free, and its less expensive. How clearly is is possible to spell it out to you without you getting it:
Here's a list of government-spent $ per capita on healthcare, I took this from http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934556.html but just about anywhere you look will give you the same kinds of result. this is from 2007, the most recent I found:

Iceland 3,294
Norway 4,080
Australia 3,123
Canada 3,173
Ireland 2,618
Sweden 2,828
Switzerland 4,011
Japan 2,293
Netherlands 3,092
France 3,040
Finland 2,203

This is how much the respective governments spends(our taxes at work) on healthcare per person. Each and every one of these countries provide free, universal healthcare for all their citizens,wether they have insurance or not (which you are welcome to buy) or whether they pay taxes or not.

So what about the US you say?

United States 6,096

Almost twice what many others pay.

No government spends more taxes on healtcare than the US government spends

Yet, US citizens have to pay private companies for most healthcare they actually get. Either by paying the doctor/hospital directly, or by paying private insurance companies.

How the hell is that cheaper than "free"??

Most healtcare, compared to US "healthcare", is actually cheaper than free.

Try Dogfish Head's 120 Minute IPA as well sometime, it's an amazing, unique beer. Great choice on the belgian styles, and you can't go wrong with Victory Brewery. I'm sad to say that I have yet to try several of the beers on your list.

If you haven't yet for some reason, you should really try Chimay Grande Reserve, it's one of my absolute favorites.

And if you EVER get the chance, Westvleteren 12 is the single greatest beer in the entire world, not even joking. It'll run you 20+ for a bottle, but you have to at least try it once if you call yourself a beer connoisseur.