Every time you make a crack about "the Kenyan", you are providing fuel for the "Racial Grievance Indu$try".

Every time you make a crack about "the Quran", you are widening the divide between American Muslims and non-Muslims.

Your attitude is making worse the situations that you are complaining about.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that someone was able to prove that Obama was not born in the US. If that happened early last year, Hilary would be President now. If that happens after Obama leaves office, nothing will have changed. It had to have happened just before the election for it to have made a difference in the balance of power. It didn't happen. Let it go.

You know there were a lot of people worried when JFK took office that he would be more loyal to the Pope than his home country because he was Catholic. Their fears were unfounded, and those fears about Obama's loyalty have even less foundation, since he is clearly not even Muslim.

I just don't understand why you would want to keep bringing up these dead or non-existent issues.

>> ^joedirt:
- babies are not born as theists. they lack the abilities to be recognizable as having belief let alone in a concept of 'god'
- this "no belief" versus "belief in nothing" is stupid.
You don't speak German or you speak but not German. Does it really matter which?
- You have to similarly believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or at least belief there is no proof he does not exist. There is no way to believe in a deity with lack of any observable evidence, and then say you know your deity is more valid or even different from a flying ball of spaghetti.

I'm not afraid of anything.
This does not preclude me not wanting certain things to happen - and I will manipulate people and events to make sure that those things do not come to fruition. Just as most people do -e.g. most people are not afraid of water but will use an umbrella to avoid getting wet - they do not want water on themselves regardless of a lack of fear.

Keep your manipulations and umbrellas away from me. Maybe I like walking in the rain. Take your chicken little sky-is-falling so you must save everyone and shove it.


Babies are not born theists - 100% agree with you. Neither are they born atheists - they lack the abilities to have any form of definable lack of belief.

no belief vs. belief in nothing - yes it does matter to me. Maybe not to you good for you - no one is forcing you to enter into the discussion.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster - oh the Monster that is simply a synonym for god - what you say - yes a synonym for god - go read the history - it can do everything that god can save it is called a FSM instead of god - making it a simple synonym. Don't believe me - ask yourself - can the Christian god (the god that the FSM was made to mock) appear as anything - why yes he can. He can appear as a FSM - he can appear as a teapot - or he can appear as a giant walking penis with testicles for legs. So yes all the arguments stay the same for the FSM - since it is just a rose by any other name.

Really - keep my manipulations away from you. I notice it wasn't a request - that's right your telling me to keep away - not asking. You are manipulating the people around you to stop something happening that you don't want to happen - that is you don't want me near you (even though you are the one who by answering me have come near me). You are doing exactly as I'd do but you don't see the hypocrisy.

Chicken little what? What are you talking about?

Seriously - you bore me.

- babies are not born as theists. they lack the abilities to be recognizable as having belief let alone in a concept of 'god'

- this "no belief" versus "belief in nothing" is stupid.
You don't speak German or you speak but not German. Does it really matter which?

- You have to similarly believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or at least belief there is no proof he does not exist. There is no way to believe in a deity with lack of any observable evidence, and then say you know your deity is more valid or even different from a flying ball of spaghetti.

I'm not afraid of anything.

This does not preclude me not wanting certain things to happen - and I will manipulate people and events to make sure that those things do not come to fruition. Just as most people do -e.g. most people are not afraid of water but will use an umbrella to avoid getting wet - they do not want water on themselves regardless of a lack of fear.

Keep your manipulations and umbrellas away from me. Maybe I like walking in the rain. Take your chicken little sky-is-falling so you must save everyone and shove it.

>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^harlequinn:
Atheist = there is no god (a = no, theist = belief in deity). Atheism is a positive assertion of the non-existence of god. Some people think it is the simple denial of theism - without qualifying how one denies it. If you reject belief in god then you must believe some alternative - either that there is no god, or that the existence of god cannot be known (agnostic). Take your pick.

It's pretty clear you are a religious person by your ability to contradict yourself and make false conclusions.
"a = no, theist = belief in deity" Correct. No belief in a deity.
That is NOT the same as "belief in no deity".
Atheist is a term which covers many types of non-religious people. Yes, there are people who believe there is no god, but they are a tiny minority, because most of us understand there is simply no proof either way. You can call that agnostic, but that's not entirely accurate. But because of the fear of being labeled as an atheist, the term agnostic is being used more frequently.
Babies are born atheist. They have no knowledge of a deity, and therefor no belief in a deity. See above, no belief in a deity. There is no such word as "aatheist" because it is a double negative, to "not not believe in a deity" would mean that you believe in a deity.
PS. I'm an atheist. What are you afraid of?


It is pretty clear I'm not anything. Your making an assumption based on a small amount of reasoning presented by me. I warned people against making assumptions - but there had to be one person dumb enough to do it. It is like me saying your obviously Republican (with no grounds to say it).

I disagree with you - I made my position quite clear and gave an explanation why. You make a statement "this is NOT the same..." and give nothing to qualify it. I will state that it is the same - and for the reasons I gave - saying "I just don't believe - it's not that I'm saying he doesn't exist" makes no sense. If you don't believe in a god then you must believe that he either doesn't exist or that you can't know if he exists. There is no sitting on the fence.

Let me say it another way - if you were to say "I don't believe in god" you would be required to also say "I also don't not believe in god - since I can't determine if he exists to not believe in" does that make it clearer for you?

Babies are not born atheist. I gave my reason why. I'm sorry to see you didn't understand it. Aatheist is a word - I just made it up - and you repeated it - meaning that at least two people have used it. It is not a double negative - aatheism = no atheism = no non-belief in a deity - you neither believe in nor not believe in him since you do not know the concept yet to believe or not believe in.

Just to be sure - yes "no belief in a deity" is not the same semantically as "belief in no deity". As I've explained though one cannot deny belief without asserting what one therefore does or doesn't believe in (there is no dead end where you simply have no-belief and don't take it further - unless you are able to freeze your train of thought where no one else can).

Your an atheist - good for you - I actually don't care. Why do you ask what I'm afraid of? Did I imply I have fear of something? I'll throw a dog a bone and answer your question (I'm not obliged to answer - especially when it was a question designed as an implication that I'm afraid of something).

I'm not afraid of anything.

This does not preclude me not wanting certain things to happen - and I will manipulate people and events to make sure that those things do not come to fruition. Just as most people do -e.g. most people are not afraid of water but will use an umbrella to avoid getting wet - they do not want water on themselves regardless of a lack of fear.

Right back at you - what are you afraid of?

You are showing classic signs of being indoctrinated into thinking that all Chistians believe the doctrines that you just described. You are oversimplifying, and there is more than one way to interpret scripture. The reason that we have need for a Savior is because we have been given agency and will make mistakes. This agency provides us an opportunity to learn and grow because we are free to make mistakes. (We lived with God before we were given mortal bodies, but we were like children, and God wished to see us progress. This life is a stage in our progression.) God provided a Savior so that we could return to live with him, because no unclean thing can dwell in his presence. We are not born on the path to hell. We are born innocent and perfect and are not held accountable for Adam's sin. Only our own. God does require something of us. I'm sorry if you find that offensive. I believe that the faith, repentance, good works, and morality he requires not only lead us back to him, but they make us happy in this life. If God provided proof of his existence, faith and sacrifice (which test us and make us better) would not be necessary.

Many people do not understand the doctrine of the Law of Moses. Some of the commandments given in the Old Testament (sacrifice, dietary guidelines, etc.) were part of the Law of Moses. This law was meant to prepare the people to receive Jesus, thus the sacrifices (symbolic of the sacrifice of the Savior). This was replaced by a higher law after Jesus came. The Old Testament is a record of believers who never knew Jesus Christ. Christ taught the Jews the true nature of God, demonstrating through his teaching and service that he is not vengeful and jealous, but perfectly just and kind. But, yes, he gets mad when we're disobedient. No lightning bolts or anything, though. Similarly, some people understand that the Bible is not only a sacred book but a product of its time. Some of the opinions of the prophets are just that: Opinions. They are pretty easily distinguishable from doctrine. I don't believe that the Bible is a perfect book. It has been mistranslated many times. In the first place, it was written by imperfect beings. It is a record of sacred things kept by them. It may not always be literal, but it provides understanding, inspiration, and guidance. God is consistent and unchanging, but he understands that we are not.

I believe that Christ is the Son of God, not God himself. For more on this topic, read this:
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=00d51b3e50cf5110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hi
deNav=1
Jesus Christ suffered for our sins. The "Atonement" or "Passion," as some call it, did not occur solely on the cross. In the garden of Gethsemane prior to his crucifiction he endured pain of mind, body, and soul which was beyond what anyone but the son of God could have endured. This satisfied the demands of justice for a perfectly just god as well as a perfectly merciful one. Christ paid our debt, which is why we are indebted to him and why he requires our love and obedience.

This is not meant to convince you of anything. I'm just pointing out that your ideas about Christianity may be influenced by your underexposure to a number of Christian faiths which do not believe what evangelicals and Catholics believe. Your understanding of Christian doctrine is not perfect (as is the case with most people, including me), so I don't think you're qualified to say that the doctrine is absurd.

>> ^MaxWilder:
If the bible simply described Jesus coming to the world and offering advice on how to live a great life and offered some direction on what God had in mind for us, then I might consider it seriously. But as it was written, Jesus said "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." In essence, the Word is "You better believe me, otherwise you go to hell." Why would we go to hell without Jesus? Because without Jesus, we are not saved. Why do we need to be saved? Because of original sin. We are born into this world on the path to hell. Well, gee, thanks for that God.

So all we have to do is put our complete trust in the text of a book that tells the story of a jealous and vengeful God, who at some point decides he wants to be a nicer guy so he sends his only son to allow us a slim chance of escaping eternal damnation. All you have to do is believe with all your heart something that was written in a book many centuries ago. You have to follow all its rules, except for the ones you really don't agree with, you can call those archaic.

Oh and how does Jesus save us? "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." Jesus was a sacrifice. He took our sins onto himself, that we need not pay the ultimate price if we simply accept him into our hearts. ...Wait a minute, how is Jesus a sacrifice? Jesus is God, right? He came down, said some stuff, died and went back to heaven. Where is the sacrifice in that? What was the point? It only makes sense to a culture that regularly made sacrifices to gods. A sacrifice is giving up something that is valuable to you. Jesus was not really a sacrifice on anybody's behalf, because God can't die.

It's fundamental absurdities like this that make Christianity so transparently false. They might have worked on people centuries ago, who had a worldview that included baseless guilt, vengeful gods, and meaningless sacrifices. But it doesn't work today. We have the ability to see things a little more clearly, if we choose to do so.

So to sum up, if there is a higher intelligence who wanted to tell us something, it would be internally consistent, and not dependent on the culture of a specific time and place. It would be impossible to be an atheist because it would be inherently obvious to anybody who saw it, and there would not be a single person on the planet who would fail to have the opportunity to learn about it. Christianity fails on every level.

Fetuses = persons means miscarriage = homicide, anybody here supporting that?

The law says not born = not a person, simple criteria, other options for criteria exist, but nobody is really talking about implementing them.

We could go with brain waves, so then we are all legally obliged to be vegans ( I already am, so that's okay with me)

We could go with "sentience", which, as already mentioned humans are not born with.

We could go with chromosome count, in which case folks with downs syndrome don't count.

We could go with conception, thereby resulting in the complete state regulation of all female reproductive systems. Did she ovulate? Did it fertilize? Did it implant? Did she miscarry? These are all facts that the state MUST know in order to protect fetal human life, and the last two are, at least, man-slaughter, so get ready for a massive rise in the female inmate population.

Here's a nice little hypothetical I like to throw out: Let's say I see you in public being and asshole ( don't say not me, we have all done it) and I retaliate by jumping on your back and sucking your blood, which I now use as my only form of sustenance. We are both clearly human, we both clearly have human rights, I am clearly being a parasite, and it has clearly happened as a consequence of something you have done. Do I have the right to parasitize you? Do you have a right to stop me, even if your stopping me causes my death? Do you, in effect, have a right to self defense which over rides my right to enslave you? If so, how can a ball of cells over ride your rights, when an acknowledged person can not?

@BansheeX, I agree with your assessment about Kucinich. I think in a lot of ways he had a better platform, and more solid convictions. He wasn't the better candidate though, because he didn't have the soaring speaking style, or the moderate policies of Obama or Clinton. Being a "better candidate" is all about electability, not governance.

I disagree with the entire term "welfare state" when used about the United States government. Look at any other English speaking nation in the world, and tell me we have some sort of "welfare" state. It's just not born out by the facts or realistic comparison with any other industrialized nation. Even India has a stronger health care plan than the U.S. (in that they have one).

All that said, what I said in my original post is still true. Just because you haven't listened, haven't liked it, or wanted more change, doesn't mean Obama hasn't talked about specifics, and is somehow secretly status quo.

Classic Rove.

Take your candidates weakest point and make a video about it.

Freakin' McCain was born in Panama Zone which was never a US Territory. There will be a lawsuit over his eligibility to be President since he was not technically native born (different from naturalized).

Now, anyone who says he's not American is nuts and I think he clearly is eligible, but I think the Supreme Court will have to decide since it isn't defined in the Constitution or Amendments as to what is "native born". Yes his parents were both US citizens and he may have been born on a military base (doubtful). But that doesn't matter. Go look it up on the State Dept homepage. It's a common misconception.

Panama zone was leased by the US and never a territory. He was not born on US soil. Yes, if you are born to US parents overseas you are a citizen, but a naturalized one (ie. you have to apply). Some definitions (most) of native born require being born in the US or US territory.

Well, the point is that as a man you don't have to choose to desire women. You're built that way. To desire other men there has to be a change at some point to cause that. Whether it's in the womb, a decision (concious or otherwise) brought on by external influences, or a combination of factors hasn't been proven yet. My opinion that it's a choice is just that, a personal opinion. If there's ever concrete scientific evidence where it can positively be stated that it's completely out of someone's control and they just are born wired that way, that's fine. Although that still leaves the people I've known that have claimed it was a concious decision at a point in their life, and that it's like a fetish, meaning that at least some homosexuals are not born with this crossed wiring. If it is true that genetics causes homosexual children to be born, and this has been happening througout all of recorded history, I would think there would be some kindof evolutionary response to begin to weed this weakness out. Doc_m, or someone else with a good genetics backround, please correct me if this is wrong. Also, since I neglected to clarify this in my previous post, my opinion that homosexuality is a decision has no Biblical basis, nor is it a core issue. Only it's immorality, not it's origins, are mentioned.

**EDIT**
For wazant, that scenerio doesn't work. You would walk up to your commanding officer, tell him your gay, wait for laughter, then go back to work. No one is going to discharge you because you claim you're gay. If they discharge someone, it's for other reasons. Usually related to the gay soldiers platoon seriously voicing official complaints, or in extreme cases, catching someone in a homosexual act. You can't just say you're gay and expect them to start your paperwork.

Choggie, So I take it you being a heterosexual was a choice? You could have gone one way or another but decided to go straight and could just as easily switch teams since you were not born heterosexual?

Yeah, because my friend chose to be gay when he had feelings for his male classmates at the age of 7? As if he could even understand it. Just because you can't tell homosexuality by skin color, that doesn't mean people are not born gay.

As a side note, when did you choose to become a heterosexual? And why exactly did you choose that lifestyle?

In reply to this comment by choggie:
"Substitute the word "homosexual" with the word "Negro"

Tired of idgits making this comparison....
born black, not gay.....sorry kids, imprints are a motherfucker....

What's in your sexuality?? It ain't melanin or the lack thereof-

hey blankfist....what about the anti-abortionists that are atheists? Or that are not Christian? The association of religion, soul, and conception, was not born of religiosity, it was implanted by public discourse, editorialized upon and spun, by the media, fueled by a few extremeist types, since Row V Wade. Prior to this, abortion has always been, an action in which the medical estab., was not complicit....and the act of eliminating a pregnancy, was either initiated by genetic predisposition, injury, or when perpetrated by the individual, has been a social stigma, since civilized societies have been around.....abortion is a cop out like suicide, in most cases...and teh justifications used, invariably come back to bite the asses of those guilty.

Human rights ARE NOT a birthright. The whole american enterprise was built on belief in God, on this kind of protestant culture of community and enterprise, a kind of soft belief but non the less belief.
It says created equal, not born equal. The sad fact is - you need God to keep america running, as it is, which doesn't mean that the end result is good.
Look at Europe, it's turning more and more post-christian, but, the sad fact is, europe is or was christian, christianity was , if not it's essence, then it's brackettes or it's wall. the only way out of christianity is paganism. NOW - rationality and real atheism can exist within paganism, as they did within a christian culture, BUT you can't build a culture or a civlization on rationality and atheism.
FIRSTLY - because it probably wont work
SECONDLY - because if it did work it would be worse than anything ever seen on the face on the planet, a culture made of pure rational addicts, hiperconsumers, a perpetual HELL of rationality. The bedrock of human experience is subconscious, subtle and in the end probably unknowable. HUman experience, life itself, are irrational to a huge degree.


"...for the world, which seems
To lie before us like a land of dreams,
So various, so beautiful, so new,
Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light,
Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain;..."

I really don't ENJOY any freedom, as MR. Condell states, I bare it, it's a wight, as all real freedom is, and you need to be free from freedom, sometimes, or you go insane.
People are free, or they aint..
and all the rest is sociological taint

I'm not claiming that people shouldn't form alternative hypotheses or question the official account of the attacks. If the validities of these inquiries are not borne out by the evidence, however, then it would seem decidedly irrational to persist with them.

I'm not sure what you mean when you mention "the insider trading thing."

gwaan spaketh:
"The majority of Christians are not literalists. "

1) That's because the majority of people who refer to themselves as "Christian" are not 'born-again' believers and disciples of Jesus Christ, rather they are simply church goers who categorize themselves as 'Christian' in the same way they call themselves American or Caucasian or Republican.

It's just another social group affiliation label.

2) genuine Literal interpretation does not exclude the recognition that many parts of scripture were =intended= to be poetic, metaphorical, allegorical, etc.

The problem comes when simple minded zealots refuse to use reason and common sense and try to impose a meaning onto scripture that doesn't exist and twist it to mean some bizarre thing that was never intended.