# A new take on Strinmusic's thread



## ambush80 (Mar 13, 2012)

Let's look at Strings thread in a different way.   

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/03/06/c...syndrome-baby/

Is the parents lawsuit unfounded?  Wrong?  And if anyone dare to tackle this topic, would aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down's syndrome be wrong?  How about aborting a fetus with a partial brain or partial internal organs? What about if the doctors said that if it survived the birth that it wouldn't live more than a few minutes/hours/days?

How do atheists make these kinds of decisions?


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 13, 2012)

Are you wanting input from all, or just atheists?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 13, 2012)

They would have to base their decisions on morals, logic, the law, instinct, and mercy of the child. These are some of the same decisions you would have to make if you had a family member on life support.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 13, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Are you wanting input from all, or just atheists?




I'd like to hear from anyone adhering to the intended structure of this sub-forum.   For this particular exercise, Scripture should be avoided.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 13, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> They would have to base their decisions on morals, logic, the law, instinct, and mercy of the child. These are some of the same decisions you would have to make if you had a family member on life support.



Agreed.  Would you say that they could make moral decisions based on those criteria?


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 13, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I'd like to hear from anyone adhering to the intended structure of this sub-forum.   For this particular exercise, Scripture should be avoided.



Figured I'd ask in light of the last sentence of your post.

To answer the question, I think AD got it.  Morals, etc.  We all make decisions based on our environment.  Incorporating whatever we see as a valid basis into that structure for decision making.  So, I believe a moral decision is possible based on the criteria he listed.

I believe you know what it is you reference when determining between good and evil.  If such a reference exists, then you have a basis.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 13, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Figured I'd ask in light of the last sentence of your post.
> 
> To answer the question, I think AD got it.  Morals, etc.  We all make decisions based on our environment.  Incorporating whatever we see as a valid basis into that structure for decision making.  So, I believe a moral decision is possible based on the criteria he listed.
> 
> I believe you know what it is you reference when determining between good and evil.  If such a reference exists, then you have a basis.



Is it too much to ask that the 'basis' of our morality  be something that we can all access equally; that we can all apply the same scrutiny to?


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 13, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Is it too much to ask that the 'basis' of our morality  be something that we can all access equally; that we can all apply the same scrutiny to?



My and your basis would be very similar, except I would incorporate certain things that you would not.  We share a legal system, a culture, we both are parents, etc.

I am not certain if you are asking in a universal sense, or relevant to this thread.  If you want a basis for all of us to agree on within this thread then yes, I'm sure it is very possible to find common ground.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 13, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> My and your basis would be very similar, except I would incorporate certain things that you would not.  We share a legal system, a culture, we both are parents, etc.
> 
> I am not certain if you are asking in a universal sense, or relevant to this thread.  If you want a basis for all of us to agree on within this thread then yes, I'm sure it is very possible to find common ground.



I was asking in a universal sense and it was actually a bit rhetorical.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 14, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Agreed.  Would you say that they could make moral decisions based on those criteria?


Yes you could. I would add that in some situations you could make better decisions without religion being a part of the process. If I had to pull the plug on a family member who was brain dead to end their misery, it would be easier if religion did not play a role and I thought I was playing God so to speak in doing so.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 14, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Is it too much to ask*Not at all.* that the 'basis' of our morality  be something that we can all access equally; that we can all apply the same scrutiny to?



Not at all. I think we all are equal. We can all make our own choices. All of us will be scrutinized no matter what...you AND me.

That's why I don't believe I was born perfect or be predestined to be perfect, while others are chosen not to be perfect and be condemned for it, for no other reason than for God's glory????... I would have a big problem with that.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 14, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Not at all. I think we all are equal. We can all make our own choices. All of us will be scrutinized no matter what...you AND me.
> 
> That's why I don't believe I was born perfect or be predestined to be perfect, while others are chosen not to be perfect and be condemned for it, for no other reason than for God's glory????... I would have a big problem with that.



You know what God's glory is?  You know what I need to do to experience God's glory?  

Wait a cotton picking minute!!!!  Why is God's glory being brought up at all here?  This is not the right forum.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 14, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> You know what God's glory is?  You know what I need to do to experience God's glory?
> 
> Wait a cotton picking minute!!!!  Why is God's glory being brought up at all here?  This is not the right forum.



Really? my bad...gems brought up God's glory, probably in another thread...so sorry. I'll go look....:


----------



## Four (Mar 14, 2012)

Depending on the situation, i would seriously consider aborting a fetus that has severe medical problems that would either drastically limit the quality of live, or have a drastically short life.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 14, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> They would have to base their decisions on morals, logic, the law, instinct, and mercy of the child.


I agree with this.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 14, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I was asking in a universal sense and it was actually a bit rhetorical.



Ok. Perhaps my comprehension is not quite up to speed.


----------



## drippin' rock (Mar 14, 2012)

Four said:


> Depending on the situation, i would seriously consider aborting a fetus that has severe medical problems that would either drastically limit the quality of live, or have a drastically short life.



I tend to agree, but I'll add I would have to faced with the actual situation before I could speculate.  In the case of Down's Syndrome, some of the most cheerful, loving people I have met suffered from DS.  As fractured as they are mentally, they still have something to offer. 

Thinking about this is extremely difficult.  Before I had children my answer might have been different.  Now, I don't want to even consider a world with abortion.  

So let's say the doctor has just informed you your child has a 10% chance of living the 1st hour after birth.  Doctors can be wrong about many things.  Would you take that 10% chance?


----------



## Four (Mar 14, 2012)

drippin' rock said:


> So let's say the doctor has just informed you your child has a 10% chance of living the 1st hour after birth.  Doctors can be wrong about many things.  Would you take that 10% chance?



I dont know, if the child makes it will it have a normal life? or is it, 10% chance to live, and if it does it'll be crippled / unstable etc?

I would also have to think of my wife,s stabability, would it be better for her to abort early, vs. having to watch a newborn die?


----------



## drippin' rock (Mar 14, 2012)

Four said:


> I dont know, if the child makes it will it have a normal life? or is it, 10% chance to live, and if it does it'll be crippled / unstable etc?
> 
> I would also have to think of my wife,s stabability, would it be better for her to abort early, vs. having to watch a newborn die?



Those are good questions.  That's why it is so hard to debate this.  I don't think it can be pigeonholed into right or wrong.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 14, 2012)

drippin' rock said:


> Those are good questions.  That's why it is so hard to debate this.  I don't think it can be pigeonholed into right or wrong.



It's not really a debate.  It's a discussion.  We all have and will have to make difficult decisions of a moral nature.   It's helpful to hear how others deal with these kinds of things.  The article in the OP even got me thinking about things.

Last might I asked my wife if we found out early that our daughter had down's if she would choose to abort. (We know several down's children).  She said she didn't know.  I asked her if there was a point that at which the severe illness of the fetus would cause her to abort and she said yes.  She's a deist, by the way,  but she doesn't know why. 

A religious text can be useful in thinking through these questions if you view it as a basic history of man's struggle to establish moral codes.


----------



## drippin' rock (Mar 14, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> It's not really a debate.  It's a discussion.  We all have and will have to make difficult decisions of a moral nature.   It's helpful to hear how others deal with these kinds of things.  The article in the OP even got me thinking about things.
> 
> Last might I asked my wife if we found out early that our daughter had down's if she would choose to abort. (We know several down's children).  She said she didn't know.  I asked her if there was a point that at which the severe illness of the fetus would cause her to abort and she said yes.  She's a deist, by the way,  but she doesn't know why.
> 
> A religious text can be useful in thinking through these questions if you view it as a basic history of man's struggle to establish moral codes.



Poor choice of words.  I said debate, meant discuss.  I certainly believe these life choices are up to the parents.  Should we be allowed to sue if the Doc gives us the wrong information?  My knee jerk reaction is..... I don't know.  It sure does seem like the parents in question are more worried about their financial future than the future of their child.

These are murky waters.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 14, 2012)

drippin' rock said:


> Poor choice of words.  I said debate, meant discuss.  I certainly believe these life choices are up to the parents.  Should we be allowed to sue if the Doc gives us the wrong information?  My knee jerk reaction is..... I don't know.  It sure does seem like the parents in question are more worried about their financial future than the future of their child.
> 
> These are murky waters.



They're kind of tied together, don't you think?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 14, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> They're kind of tied together, don't you think?



Not in the sense of life or death.


----------



## jmharris23 (Mar 14, 2012)

I can only think of one reason why I would possibly agree to an abortion..... it's hard to say sometimes what you would do til you have to make that decision...sometimes life is hard....for the believer and the unbeliever alike.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 14, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> ... it's hard to say sometimes what you would do til you have to make that decision...sometimes life is hard....for the believer and the unbeliever alike.



I've did things good & bad for my children that I thought i'd never have done. They say people without kids make the best parents.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 14, 2012)

I didn't watch the video, but I get the jist of the OP. I have a 21 month old baby. I remeber seeing her for the first time on the ultrasound. I was soooo relieved when the nurse said,"everything looks fine".

Being a Christian, I would have to pray alot about this situation. It would not be decision I had to make, but I would be praying for strength to do the right thing, and do it well, for God's glory.

That is a tough one Ambush, but you never know what will happen.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...isabled-master-song-hearing--What-secret.html


----------



## TheBishop (Mar 15, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Is it too much to ask that the 'basis' of our morality  be something that we can all access equally; that we can all apply the same scrutiny to?



No its not too much, as a matter of fact I beleive it is already been defined.  They are called rights which in reality only stem from one set.  "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness." The "morallity" stemming from this principal is balanced, fair, universally applicable, and a perfect formula for a free and prosperous diverse world.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 22, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> No its not too much, as a matter of fact I beleive it is already been defined.  They are called rights which in reality only stem from one set.  "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness." The "morallity" stemming from this principal is balanced, fair, universally applicable, and a perfect formula for a free and prosperous diverse world.



... unless you are a chicken, or an egg.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 23, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> No its not too much, as a matter of fact I beleive it is already been defined.  They are called rights which in reality only stem from one set.  "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness." The "morallity" stemming from this principal is balanced, fair, *universally applicable*, and a perfect formula for a free and prosperous diverse world.



Universally applicable to who?


----------



## TheBishop (Mar 23, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Universally applicable to who?



All mankind.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 23, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> All mankind.



So there is a moral principal that can be applied to all mankind?


----------



## TheBishop (Mar 23, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> So there is a moral principal that can be applied to all mankind?



No not really String.  I knew you pick it up, but thats why I put morallity in quotation marks. You _could_ call it a morallity but it would not be that exactly , it would be law.  You could, I guess, form your moral principals, from them.  But they would first be the law of man, the guidelines in which to live and construct society by, so that arbitrary moral values do not cause conflict.  It allows people to be free from the ever changing morals of others.

It would be both moral and immoral.  I would find it moral, some, most likely the most religious, would not. For instance.  If a man and another man wanted to get married and have sex it would be none of our concern. The act itself would be considered immoral to some, and some wish to enact laws to prevent it, legislating morality.  Under the guidlines I set forth it would actaully protect the act which is considered immoral and prevent the legislating of morality.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 23, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> No not really String.  I knew you pick it up, but thats why I put morallity in quotation marks. You _could_ call it a morallity but it would not be that exactly , it would be law.


Law based on what?

I knew that you put the word morals in quotations so if anything was said, you could later qualify that it didn't really mean morals. I couldn't think of any other word that would fit well into that sentence other than synonyms for the word moral.




> You could, I guess, form your moral principals, from them.  But they would first be the law of man,


Again, "law" of man based on what? A law based on no morals?



> *the guidelines in which to live and construct society by*, so that arbitrary moral values do not cause conflict.  It allows people to be free from the ever changing morals of others.


You mean, morals?
So we need a law, not bound by morals whatsoever, so moral values do not cause conflict?

How do you think we can make laws without using some moral basis for those laws?


----------



## TheBishop (Mar 23, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Law based on what?
> 
> I knew that you put the word morals in quotations so if anything was said, you could later qualify that it didn't really mean morals. I couldn't think of any other word that would fit well into that sentence other than synonyms for the word moral.
> 
> ...



Laws based on RIGHTS.  The right for a man to live free from the moral constraints of others.  The right for a man to choose his own morality based on his own choosing. The right for a man to choose live as he deems fit, and do anything he wishes, as long as does not intrude on the rights of others to do the same.  

Laws based on rights needs no moral justification.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 23, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Laws based on RIGHTS.  The right for a man to live free from the moral constraints of others.  The right for a man to choose his own morality based on his own choosing. The right for a man to choose live as he deems fit, and do anything he wishes, as long as does not intrude on the rights of others to do the same.


How did we come about the rights? If morals are relative as you say, are these rights just as relative?



> Laws based on rights needs no moral justification.


Laws based on rights have moral implications.

People have rights(we just disagree on where they get these rights I'm sure) so we have a law that people cannot murder. Giving the moral implication that we cannot infringe on others right to live. We are assuming that person who is not to be murdered has purpose and therefor it is morally wrong to kill them.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 23, 2012)

String you are all caught up on the source of morals. Just tell us all how you think we got them and be done with it. I am not asking you to prove it, because even you know you can't, but just tell us all how and when we got our morals, who gave them to us, and why we should all look to the Bible as a guide to follow the commands and examples that are supposed to guide us through daily life.

You are now saying laws are based off of morals. No doubt some are but clearly not all law is based off of morals. Look up some of the old "blue laws" that are still in effect throughout the country. Not many morals involved in those laws.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 23, 2012)

bullethead said:


> String you are all caught up on the source of morals. Just tell us all how you think we got them and be done with it. I am not asking you to prove it, because even you know you can't, but just tell us all how and when we got our morals, who gave them to us, and why we should all look to the Bible as a guide to follow the commands and examples that are supposed to guide us through daily life.


I think we got morals from God, since we are made in His image. I pretty sure I have said that before and I think my answer is pretty obvious.



> You are now saying laws are based off of morals. No doubt some are but clearly not all law is based off of morals. Look up some of the old "blue laws" that are still in effect throughout the country. Not many morals involved in those laws.


Your right, some laws are based on purpose of humans, saying certian things ought not to be done, giving reason to the fact that doing those things that ought not to be done(against the law) are not the purpose for humans, for whatever reason that is brought forth. However, even purpose could be argued, to have moral implications.


----------



## TheBishop (Mar 23, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> How did we come about the rights? If morals are relative as you say, are these rights just as relative?
> 
> 
> Laws based on rights have moral implications.
> ...



We get our rights from our creator, in the fact we are alive. Creator need not be defined becuase we do not KNOW what it is, but we do know that we have been created.  Knowing what or how we got here, is unessecary to the issue of rights.  Rights are the nessecary foundation to the formation of free and prosperous society.  

We haved learned from history that the best way mankind can prosper is in a free, peaceful, and ordered society.   You cannot have an ordered society, if is not peacful, and you will not have peacful society if it is not free.  

Free is not as simple as do anything you want.  But it is a simple as do anything you want as long as you do not infringe on the rights of others.  If we agree that we all have a right to life, and the execution thereof, then murder is a direct threat to that right.  

It does not need validation in morality.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 23, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> We get our rights from our creator, in the fact we are alive. Creator need not be defined becuase we do not KNOW what it is, but we do know that we have been created.  Knowing what or how we got here, is unessecary to the issue of rights.  Rights are the nessecary foundation to the formation of free and prosperous society.
> 
> We haved learned from history that the best way mankind can prosper is in a free, peaceful, and ordered society.   You cannot have an ordered society, if is not peacful, and you will not have peacful society if it is not free.
> 
> Free is not as simple as do anything you want.  But it is a simple as do anything you want as long as you do not infringe on the rights of others.  If we agree that we all have a right to life, and the execution thereof, then murder is a direct threat to that right.


How do we know that our creator gave us rights if we don't know anything who created us? 



> It does not need validation in morality. Morals are the result of the formations of society, they are not part foundation.



No, morality does not validate the laws, I would still argue that morality is however the foundation to those rights. We can just throw out the opinion that one ought not to kill the other if the moral foundation to the right of life is not identified.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 23, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> We get our rights from our creator, in the fact we are alive. Creator need not be defined becuase we do not KNOW what it is, but we do know that we have been created.  Knowing what or how we got here, is unessecary to the issue of rights.  Rights are the nessecary foundation to the formation of free and prosperous society.
> 
> We haved learned from history that the best way mankind can prosper is in a free, peaceful, and ordered society.   You cannot have an ordered society, if is not peacful, and you will not have peacful society if it is not free.
> 
> ...



BTW, I agree with A LOT of what you said.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 23, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I think we got morals from God, since we are made in His image. I pretty sure I have said that before and I think my answer is pretty obvious.


Yes you have said that before. Numerous times. And it is your opinion. In all the discussions about it you have failed to prove we get our morals from your God, yet you continue to act if your guess where morals come from is some sort of fact and continue along as if others believe it too.
Since we were made in his image, does God look like the earliest of humans that existed on the planet? IE: Under 5ft, pre-neanderthal, hairy, nasty toothed, uni-brow looking??? Or of course you mean Adam and Eve "modern" looking....humans that could read and speak right from start....??




stringmusic said:


> Your right, some laws are based on purpose of humans, saying certian things ought not to be done, giving reason to the fact that doing those things that ought not to be done(against the law) are not the purpose for humans, for whatever reason that is brought forth. However, even purpose could be argued, to have moral implications.



Like one from here in Pa........"It it illegal to sleep on top of a refrigerator outdoors." Moral Implications?????


----------



## TheBishop (Mar 23, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> How do we know that our creator gave us rights if we don't know anything who created us?
> We don't know. But we can draw upon what we do know in order formulate an idea. This enables us to assign rights that are imperative to a free society.
> 
> We are alive, our life has been given to us by our creation, and we know becuase we are here.  It is our first right, life, it ours becuse we alone control it. Liberty, is the execution of our life in the actions of our choosing, free from coercion.  The pursuit of happiness is the results of excersing liberty in our life, and laying claim to those results.
> ...



No again morality need not come into play at all.  It is not a moral foundation, but a logical one. You cannot have a right to life if you can freely be murdered.  As soon as you assign it a right, then you have nullified the possbility to take it without retribution.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 23, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> We don't know. But we can draw upon what we do know in order formulate an idea. This enables us to assign rights that are imperative to a free society.


You say in the first sentence that we don't know, then in the next you say that we draw conclusions about what we do know. Which is it, do we know or do we not? Just indicating that we were created by some creator, that we know nothing about in no way gives us any rights.



> It is our first right, life, it ours becuse we alone control it. Liberty, is the execution of our life in the actions of our choosing, free from coercion. The pursuit of happiness is the results of excersing liberty in our life, and laying claim to those results


All this is one giant assumption if we are basing it on a creator that we don't know. How do we know this is how the creator wants us to live?




> No again morality need not come into play at all.  It is not a moral foundation, but a logical one. You cannot have a right to life if you can freely be murdered.  As soon as you assign it a right, then you have nullified the possbility to take it without retribution.


Just because logic tells a person not to murder another person does not mean that morals are not involved.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 23, 2012)

String you totally skipped my "made in His image" question.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 23, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Yes you have said that before. Numerous times. And it is your opinion. In all the discussions about it you have failed to prove we get our morals from your God, yet you continue to act if your guess where morals come from is some sort of fact and continue along as if others believe it too.
> Since we were made in his image, does God look like the earliest of humans that existed on the planet? IE: Under 5ft, pre-neanderthal, hairy, nasty toothed, uni-brow looking??? Or of course you mean Adam and Eve "modern" looking....humans that could read and speak right from start....??


I don't think that made in His image means that we look like Him physically. More like made in His image spriritually. I don't know what God physically looks like.






> Like one from here in Pa........"It it illegal to sleep on top of a refrigerator outdoors." Moral Implications?????


That law has purpose implications, which I stated it could also be argued that purpose has moral roots.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 23, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I don't think that made in His image means that we look like Him physically. More like made in His image spriritually. I don't know what God physically looks like.



Hmmmmm, change what is said in the book to suit.


----------



## TheBishop (Mar 23, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> You say in the first sentence that we don't know, then in the next you say that we draw conclusions about what we do know. Which is it, do we know or do we not? Just indicating that we were created by some creator, that we know nothing about in no way gives us any rights.
> 
> If we are alive, we were created, that much is a given. The fact we are alive, and have life granted by our creation, gives us rights granted by our creator. The creator is of no matter, only the fact that we are alive.
> 
> ...



See string this is were you have to think outside your box.  We cannot define a creator becuase  WE CANNOT DEFINE A CREATOR. But we can say I don't know and move forward. Its definiton is not needed to find the best way to live.  The best way to live is free, in a society, with other free individuals, were peace is a result of freedom, and order is byproduct of that peace.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 23, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Hmmmmm, change what is said in the book to suit.



I'm not changing anything, we are made in His image.


BTW, seen your post in the turkey forum, nice turkey guns.

Has the season already started up there?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 23, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I'm not changing anything, we are made in His image.
> 
> 
> BTW, seen your post in the turkey forum, nice turkey guns.
> ...



Uggghhhh! We have 5 weeks to wait yet!!!! They birds are strutting and gobbling like crazy now too!


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 23, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> If we are alive, we were created, that much is a given. *The fact we are alive, and have life granted by our creation, gives us rights granted by our creator*. The creator is of no matter, only the fact that we are alive.


Why do you assume this? Implying "we were created by something" in no way gives us any rights. If that were the case, anything that has ever been created by this creator has rights. I don't think ants have any rights.



> All this is one giant assumption if we are basing it on a creator that we don't know. How do we know this is how the creator wants us to live?





> Its a giant assumption the creator "wants" anything.


Then how can you make universal statements about how we should live? If this is not the way this unknown creator wants us to live, then how do you consider it universal?



> See string this is were you have to think outside your box.  We cannot define a creator becuase  WE CANNOT DEFINE A CREATOR.


The bible gives me and millions of others all we _need_ to know about God. Because you do not like the definition it gives, does not mean we cannot define a creator.



> But we can say I don't know and move forward.


If "we" don't know, there is no "forward" to move, there is no direction. That is my main point in all of our conversation about rights and morals.



> Its definiton is not needed to find the best way to live.  The best way to live is free, in a society, with other free individuals, were peace is a result of freedom, and order is byproduct of that peace.



I agree, I just don't think it possible to get to universal rights without transcedence from God that gives us value and worth.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 23, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Uggghhhh! We have 5 weeks to wait yet!!!! They birds are strutting and gobbling like crazy now too!



5 weeks

Dang, you need to get on the phone with the DNR in PA and give'em a little 

It seems like it's almost over around these parts 5 weeks from now.

Good luck to ya this year.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 23, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I'm not changing anything, we are made in His image.



And really it says : let us make man in OUR image and OUR likeness.....


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 23, 2012)

Well it's almost 5 fellas, y'all have a good weekend. I'll be reading a little bit but won't post because I'll be on my wife's phone and it takes to long to type.

There will be blood on the pants this weekend.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 23, 2012)

bullethead said:


> And really it says : let us make man in OUR image and OUR likeness.....



Yes, that is another reason I believe in the Trinity.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 23, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> 5 weeks
> 
> Dang, you need to get on the phone with the DNR in PA and give'em a little
> 
> ...



It practically IS over in another 5 weeks!! LOLOL. I am sure that is the way the Game Commission plans it. Plus we can hunt until the end of May. I have never seen such disinterested birds in the last two weeks of our season. We get some areas where the gobblers are "hotter" than others but it is really tough, especially because we have everybody educating them now until the season opens. I consider it an accomplishment to kill a longbeard around these parts when the season finally arrives.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 23, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Well it's almost 5 fellas, y'all have a good weekend. I'll be reading a little bit but won't post because I'll be on my wife's phone and it takes to long to type.
> 
> There will be blood on the pants this weekend.



Best of luck.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 23, 2012)

bullethead said:


> It practically IS over in another 5 weeks!! LOLOL. I am sure that is the way the Game Commission plans it. Plus we can hunt until the end of May. I have never seen such disinterested birds in the last two weeks of our season. We get some areas where the gobblers are "hotter" than others but it is really tough, especially because we have everybody educating them now until the season opens. *I consider it an accomplishment to kill a longbeard around these parts when the season finally arrives*.



Absolutely! It's gotta be tough.


----------



## TheBishop (Mar 26, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Why do you assume this? Implying "we were created by something" in no way gives us any rights. If that were the case, anything that has ever been created by this creator has rights. I don't think ants have any rights.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A species main goal in all life forms is survive and prosper.  That is why organisms do what they do.  ALL speciecies follow pretty much the same pattern.  We are born, we grow and consume, and then mature to reproduce. 

We are the dominant species on our little rock. Our only equal is our own kind. We have learned that the best way for us to survive and prosper is with mutual cooperation between our kind.  Free, uncoerced cooperation is the most efficient, and therefore the most desirable form.  

Assigning _these_ rights is the most efficient way.   But you are right,  humans cannot be the granter of such rights.  It would automatically make them arbitrary, allowing these rights to be flexible to whims of whomever has the most power.  Thus it _is_ nessecary to to qualify them beyond the scope of a human arbitor.  That is why we have the term creator.  It is a term that is both ambiguous and exact.  It is a perfect term, becuase it defines all, and nothing at the same time.  The term creator, could be anything, but it is first and foremost responsible for our exsistence. It gave us life, wether it be a lighting bolt in a puddle of bacteria, or mighty Zeus.  We don't know what it is, how it did it, or even if there is a reason, or it's random.  Just becuase we don't know this, it should not stop us from striving for peace and propserity.  We do know that, that is what is best for our kind..It is why our fore fathers used the term "creator" instead of god!



> The bible gives me and millions of others all we _need_ to know about God. Because you do not like the definition it gives, does not mean we cannot define a creator.
> Out of those millions, how many different views on the same god are there? Millions! Different sects, bible interpretaitons, morals, practices, ect..
> 
> If "we" don't know, there is no "forward" to move, there is no direction. That is my main point in all of our conversation about rights and morals.
> ...



If this is the case then mankind is doomed.  Then the only way to get our species on the same page is to convert them to one dogma, and freedom will be impossible to achieve.  Religion can flourish were freedom dominates, freedom cannot flourish were religion dominates.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 26, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> A species main goal in all life forms is survive and prosper.  That is why organisms do what they do.  ALL speciecies follow pretty much the same pattern.  We are born, we grow and consume, and then mature to reproduce.
> 
> We are the dominant species on our little rock. Our only equal is our own kind. We have learned that the best way for us to survive and prosper is with mutual cooperation between our kind.  Free, uncoerced cooperation is the most efficient, and therefore the most desirable form.
> 
> ...



Bishop - I am pretty sure that as long as history has been recorded (secular history specifically) that somewhere on this planet, people have been warring with other people. This socialist eutopia you speak of is just not true.


----------



## TheBishop (Mar 27, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Bishop - I am pretty sure that as long as history has been recorded (secular history specifically) that somewhere on this planet, people have been warring with other people. This socialist eutopia you speak of is just not true.



First how you got socialist out of that is beyond me.  I think you need to reevaluate what my premises are, compared to the concept of socialism. But now if you had said libertarian utopia, you'd be right.  My idea is utopic. It embraces and emobodies idividual freedom, and responsibilities, to attain peace through freedom.    

What are the reasons for such warring? 9/10 it becuase of ideology, whith no real practical purpose.  War has always been started becuase someone believes their rights supercedes those they are warring agianst.   Wether their faith commands them to believe this, or they beleive whoevers in power is the arbitor of rights.  Either way rights are not acknowlegded to be equal possesions of all mankind, justifing their violation.

Free men that embrace equal rights do not _start_ wars, ever.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 27, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Free men that embrace equal rights do not _start_ wars, ever.



And who might that be? I personally don't know a single person that believes equal rights for ALL. Everyone I know has someone/a group that they'd  disagree with, no matter what they say because of what they believe.

So that ain't gonna happen.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 28, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Bishop - I am pretty sure that as long as history has been recorded (secular history specifically) that somewhere on this planet, people have been warring with other people. This socialist eutopia you speak of is just not true.



Well according to Hitler........


----------



## TheBishop (Mar 28, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> And who might that be? I personally don't know a single person that believes equal rights for ALL. Everyone I know has someone/a group that they'd  disagree with, no matter what they say because of what they believe.
> 
> So that ain't gonna happen.



You not grasping what was said. Disagreement, does not in any way mean they don't beleive in equal rights.  Our system is set up, on equal rights.  It is not always practiced becuase of corruption.  I believe in equal rights FOR ALL! If you did not know anybody you do now.  I would also consider re-evaluating who you associate with.


----------



## TheBishop (Mar 28, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Well according to Hitler........



Stop. Hitler, can in no way be associated with the discussion we are having.  Drawing conclusion as such only means that the information given has been mis-read, and not even remotely comprehended.  I suggest re-reading the material and if there are somethings that confuse you, about anything, please pm me.  I will take the time to help you sort out the information, so that we may stay on track.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 30, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> First how you got socialist out of that is beyond me.  I think you need to reevaluate what my premises are, compared to the concept of socialism. But now if you had said libertarian utopia, you'd be right.  My idea is utopic. It embraces and emobodies idividual freedom, and responsibilities, to attain peace through freedom.
> 
> What are the reasons for such warring? 9/10 it becuase of ideology, whith no real practical purpose.  War has always been started becuase someone believes their rights supercedes those they are warring agianst.   Wether their faith commands them to believe this, or they beleive whoevers in power is the arbitor of rights.  Either way rights are not acknowlegded to be equal possesions of all mankind, justifing their violation.
> 
> Free men that embrace equal rights do not _start_ wars, ever.



I will use Ron Paul's foreign policy ideas to demonstrate how libertarians are LIKE socialists. Ron Paul stated in one of the recent debates that he believes that if we just leave the Middle East alone and let them do their thing that it will all work itself out and everyone will be OK. After 10,000 years of all out war, I am pretty sure that is not going to happen.

I think the libertarians are alright, I like the whole constitutionalist stance, freedom, personal responsibility, etc., but they have way too much faith in the inherent GOODNESS of humans.

As for your comment I highlighted in red, I agree, but sometimes men who are not free that embrace equal rights must start wars to win that precious freedom.


----------



## TheBishop (Mar 31, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> I will use Ron Paul's foreign policy ideas to demonstrate how libertarians are LIKE socialists. Ron Paul stated in one of the recent debates that he believes that if we just leave the Middle East alone and let them do their thing that it will all work itself out and everyone will be OK. After 10,000 years of all out war, I am pretty sure that is not going to happen.
> How is that like socialism?
> 
> I think the libertarians are alright, I like the whole constitutionalist stance, freedom, personal responsibility, etc., but they have way too much faith in the inherent GOODNESS of humans.
> ...



Key words that I also agree with.  But free men cannot start wars to free other men (Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, ect).  The must start it themselves.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 31, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Well according to Hitler........



Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies[1][2]) is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990[2] that has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."[2][3] In other words, Godwin observed that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably criticizes some point made in the discussion by comparing it to beliefs held by Hitler and the Nazis.

I'm not picking on you Mtnwomen, I just thought this law was interesting.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 31, 2012)

6 Degrees of Adolf Hitler so to speak.......


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 31, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Key words that I also agree with.  But free men cannot start wars to free other men (Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, ect).  The must start it themselves.



How many free people have existed on the planet since recorded history began?

I think you will find the number shockingly low. Somewhere around 5% of approximately all people who have lived on the planet (during recorded history) were free. 2.5 % live in the United States right now.

Check out this book if you really want to understand and appreciate YOUR freedom:
"THE MIRACLE OF FREEDOM: 7 TIPPING POINTS THAT SAVED THE WORLD by Chris Stewart, Ted Stewart"

What an incredible gift we might help other people achieve.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 1, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> How many free people have existed on the planet since recorded history began?
> 
> I think you will find the number shockingly low. Somewhere around 5% of approximately all people who have lived on the planet (during recorded history) were free. 2.5 % live in the United States right now.
> 
> ...



We are no where near free. I know this, but that is no reason to give up hope.  I'm not shocked at all by the number, I'm actually surprised that someone claims it's that high.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 2, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> We are no where near free. I know this, but that is no reason to give up hope.  I'm not shocked at all by the number, I'm actually surprised that someone claims it's that high.



We (the USA) are the most free society that has ever existed.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 2, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> We (the USA) are the most free society that has ever existed.



Change the are to were, and society to nation you would probably be right. But as your statement stands you are incorrect.

http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

http://www.heritage.org/index/country/unitedstates

http://rankingamerica.wordpress.com/2009/04/19/the-us-ranks-20th-in-freedom-from-corruption/

Its truly sad.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 5, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Change the are to were, and society to nation you would probably be right. But as your statement stands you are incorrect.
> 
> http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking
> 
> ...



I sure am glad I don't have to live up to your definitions and rationalizations. It is all about the constitution and the bill of rights baby. The second amendment is the pinnacle of freedom. Can’t be won or maintained with sticks and blades. Your internet "facts" and statistics are laughable.

You Bishop, are wrong on many levels.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 6, 2012)

I'm sorry your so obtuse you can't understand the information I have laid before you.  Yes the 2nd amendment and bill of rights are pinnacle of freedoms that are under constant attack. We have corporate tax rates that are the highest in the world! Imprisonment rates that rival communist China! The most free country in the world would not list those as attributes.  I'm sorry you want to ignore this and keep thinking like you are but the truth is something much more bleak.  

Were am I wrong? Instead of saying how about showing it? I bet you can't, and won't.  As your statement stands you are 100% without a doubt, incorrect.  

This is the free country you speak of:

Before you spend any of the money you earned with your labor, the government demand its share.

You will never own your house, car, boat or any other property without the government charging you for it. 

The government can decide who owns a firearm, and who's liscensed to carry it. 

They decide what is permissable to watch, and what we listen to.

They decide what can and can't put in our bodies.

They tell the manufactures what they can and cannot build. 

They decide what milk can be sold.

They are forcing all to pay for health insurance. 

Need I go on or do you get the picture? The freedom you speak of is an illusion and it is getting worse everyday.  Keep telling yourself I am wrong and I'm just rationalizing, and you will continue to be part of the problem.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 6, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> I'm sorry your so obtuse you can't understand the information I have laid before you.  Yes the 2nd amendment and bill of rights are pinnacle of freedoms that are under constant attack. We have corporate tax rates that are the highest in the world! Imprisonment rates that rival communist China! The most free country in the world would not list those as attributes.  I'm sorry you want to ignore this and keep thinking like you are but the truth is something much more bleak.
> 
> Were am I wrong? Instead of saying how about showing it? I bet you can't, and won't.  As your statement stands you are 100% without a doubt, incorrect.
> 
> ...



Your insults about my intelligence prove your own lack of it Bishop. You have no credibility with me, because you don't even stand up for what you believe in, or what you don't believe in to be precise.

How about a Philistine slave who worked 18 hours a day, 7 days a week 365 days a year. He slept on straw and was given just enough food to keep him alive. He was a stone cutter. He cut stones for the tomb of a pharaoh he would never see. At the age of 30, he died from WORK. His fellow slaves carried his body to a dry riverbed and threw it into a pile of dead slaves.

How about a 9 year old Chinese boy who woke up one morning and found that his father had finally finished the beautiful clay goblets he had been working on. The goblets were to be buried with the dead emperor. Soldiers rode into the village and took that boy and everyone else in the village and put ropes around their necks and drug them off. They and 10,000 other subjects were buried alive with their dead emperor as his attendants.

Quit whining. 
You don’t know what you are talking about.


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 6, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> You not grasping what was said. Disagreement, does not in any way mean they don't beleive in equal rights.  Our system is set up, on equal rights.  It is not always practiced becuase of corruption.  I believe in equal rights FOR ALL! If you did not know anybody you do now.  I would also consider re-evaluating who you associate with.



I associate with you......

Our system is set up for equal rights, but it doesn't work, because people are always prejudice against something....for example....I'm prejudice for the illegals to take our social services over......you're prejudice towards Christians who don't want to pay for their abortions with our taxes....you'd just as soon pay for abortions than for public schools...it's the same to you, it ain't for me.  I only had one child that went to public school, but I don't mind paying for other peoples children to go to public school, I do however have a problem with a one night stand after a night at the club partying on down, and having to pay for their abortion. I'd rather clothe a needy child for $450 a pop than pay for an abortion. You can get free birth control at the same place you can get a free abortion, if you get your hind end up off the front porch.

like that....


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 6, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> I'm sorry your so obtuse you can't understand the information I have laid before you.  Yes the 2nd amendment and bill of rights are pinnacle of freedoms that are under constant attack. We have corporate tax rates that are the highest in the world! Imprisonment rates that rival communist China! The most free country in the world would not list those as attributes.  I'm sorry you want to ignore this and keep thinking like you are but the truth is something much more bleak.
> 
> Were am I wrong? Instead of saying how about showing it? I bet you can't, and won't.  As your statement stands you are 100% without a doubt, incorrect.
> 
> ...



Yeah and I bet you're for more government, like Obama care, too, eh? You can bet your sweet pattooty that most Christians did not vote for Obama. Did you?

Let's just have a free for all. Let felons carry weapons, goverment needs to just stay out of that...alrighty then.

What is it you want to put in your body that the gov. don't allow? I can tell you some stuff that I've put in my body, that was illegal that I sure am paying for now....and wished I'd never done. 

If you are an adult what are they telling you that you can and cannot view or listen to?
Should a 12 or 14 year old be at the age of consent?

Lord have mercy Jesus.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jS7NIMbDnD4&feature=related


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 6, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Bishop - I am pretty sure that as long as history has been recorded (secular history specifically) that somewhere on this planet, people have been warring with other people. This socialist eutopia you speak of is just not true.



Jesus is our peace! Sometime we will live in peace. Whoever wants to war, can war on.....but we won't.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 7, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Your insults about my intelligence prove your own lack of it Bishop. You have no credibility with me, because you don't even stand up for what you believe in, or what you don't believe in to be precise.
> 
> How about a Philistine slave who worked 18 hours a day, 7 days a week 365 days a year. He slept on straw and was given just enough food to keep him alive. He was a stone cutter. He cut stones for the tomb of a pharaoh he would never see. At the age of 30, he died from WORK. His fellow slaves carried his body to a dry riverbed and threw it into a pile of dead slaves.
> 
> ...



What even are talking about? If your intelligence was insulted you just showed it was rightly so. Whining?  If speaking the truth is whing then color me a whiner.  I make my stand on my beliefs that a better world is achievable. Where freedom and justice reign supreme before anything.  That is my fight.  You have no idea what you are talking about so I suggest you stop.  Until you can come to the table with something better then to say you are wrong, with nothing to show for it, just bow out. I care not for my credibility with someone who is speaking beyond there own credentials.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 7, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> I associate with you......
> 
> Our system is set up for equal rights, but it doesn't work, because people are always prejudice against something....for example....I'm prejudice for the illegals to take our social services over......you're prejudice towards Christians who don't want to pay for their abortions with our taxes....you'd just as soon pay for abortions than for public schools...it's the same to you, it ain't for me.  I only had one child that went to public school, but I don't mind paying for other peoples children to go to public school, I do however have a problem with a one night stand after a night at the club partying on down, and having to pay for their abortion. I'd rather clothe a needy child for $450 a pop than pay for an abortion. You can get free birth control at the same place you can get a free abortion, if you get your hind end up off the front porch.
> 
> like that....



You are clueless, to my stance.  For I am not prejudice against christians.  It's kinda of hard to be when you true love is southern baptist.  Please refrain from labeling me as such becuase you absolutely misread my position.  Which is quite obvious by your next post.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 7, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Yeah and I bet you're for more government, like Obama care, too, eh? You can bet your sweet pattooty that most Christians did not vote for Obama. Did you?
> How you got that I  even remotely support any kind of government, let alone more than what we have now is beyond me.
> 
> Let's just have a free for all. Let felons carry weapons, goverment needs to just stay out of that...alrighty then.
> ...



I am a libratarian.  Government is not the answer for anything. I seek no conflict with christianity.  I just wish they could remove their faith when dealing with matters that concern society.  

How in the heck can you even remotely suggest someone is an Obama supporter with Milton Friedman in their signature line?


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 7, 2012)

Praise Allah/Satan Rocks....speaks volumns to your position.

Ok my bad, I thought it was against the law for felons to carry a weapon. I know they do, but I didn't know they could register a gun. Shows what I know.

People put alcohol in their bodies, then they drive, then they kill people, and it's nobody's business? Alrighty then.
People on drugs, rob and kill people to get more drugs, and that's nobody's business?....alrighty then. Let's see if we can handle that ourselves without the government. Everyone can have a gun....like I said, it's a free for all.

I do think the government goes too far on some things, but sheesh, we need some kind of common ground that everyone needs to abide by, and some morals to go along with it.

Is there a Christian on here at all that you comprehend what they're saying?.....seems you say the same thing to all of us....you don't know what we're talking about.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 7, 2012)

> ...seems you say the same thing to all of us....you don't know what we're talking about.



You make it easy to say. Especially when you try make connection between what I'm saying to hitler, Obama, socialism, and the rest of the off the wall conclusions you have drawn.


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 8, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Stop. Hitler, can in no way be associated with the discussion we are having.  Drawing conclusion as such only means that the information given has been mis-read, and not even remotely comprehended.  I suggest re-reading the material and if there are somethings that confuse you, about anything, please pm me.  I will take the time to help you sort out the information, so that we may stay on track.



Didn't hitler try to create a perfect eutopia world, that only the best of the best (according to him) could co exist? And the nazis did do what they wanted to do......it was another free for all, to act anyway you want to. What about child preditors, do you think they actually think about or care about if they hurt someone else by their actions? Do you really think that people have sense enough to 'do no harm'? I mean really we can do what we want to as long as you don't hurt anyone else, but what about the people that have no conscience to even know they are hurting anyone else.....it's a free for all.

The illegals aren't actually physically harming anyone, do you think they are harming our economy though? Should they be allowed to do anything they want to, including getting free health care, food stamps and housing, but yet take away benefits from seniors, and believe me my social security and medicare is to the point I can't even afford to go to the doctor anymore. So it does hurt me and others, even though it isn't the intention of the illegals.
There has to be some law and order and limits to what people are allowed to do. Hitler started out as one crazy person that changed thousands in to crazy people.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 9, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Didn't hitler try to create a perfect eutopia world, that only the best of the best (according to him) could co exist? And the nazis did do what they wanted to do......it was another free for all, to act anyway you want to. What about child preditors, do you think they actually think about or care about if they hurt someone else by their actions? Do you really think that people have sense enough to 'do no harm'? I mean really we can do what we want to as long as you don't hurt anyone else, but what about the people that have no conscience to even know they are hurting anyone else.....it's a free for all.
> 
> The illegals aren't actually physically harming anyone, do you think they are harming our economy though? Should they be allowed to do anything they want to, including getting free health care, food stamps and housing, but yet take away benefits from seniors, and believe me my social security and medicare is to the point I can't even afford to go to the doctor anymore. So it does hurt me and others, even though it isn't the intention of the illegals.
> There has to be some law and order and limits to what people are allowed to do. Hitler started out as one crazy person that changed thousands in to crazy people.



Agian stop with the hitler stuff it's old, extremely weak, and intellectually deficient. Hitler was trying to build a master race, by breeding and genocide.  The citizens of Germany and even the Nazi's were not free.  They could not do anything as you suggest. 

Your not grasping anything I have said.  Either you can't, which I am now beginning to believe is more probable, or refuse too,  which could be possible, based on your belief. My premise begins by accepting the nature of man is inherently good, which the bible tells you just the opposite.  I have in nowhere suggested  a social free-for-all.  

I could go into detail but I believe it would be a fruitless effort.   Please stop trying to draw these lunitical connections.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 9, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Yeah and I bet you're for more government, like Obama care, too, eh? You can bet your sweet pattooty that most Christians did not vote for Obama. Did you?
> [/url]



I think most Christians did vote for Obama.
http://www.usnews.com/news/campaign.../many-religious-voters-favor-obama-poll-finds

He also received the majority vote of atheist, women & blacks. With that many blacks voting for him, I would assume possibly, that they voted for him just because he is black. 

    Some 136.6 million Americans voted -- a 64.1 percent turnout and the highest since 1908. Obama is the first Democrat to win a majority of the popular vote (53 percent) since Jimmy Carter. By sex, BHO's support was 49 percent male and 56 percent female. By ethnic group, his support comprised 41 percent of Whites, 61 percent of Asians, 75 percent of Latinos and 95 percent of Blacks. By age, BHO's largest support demographic was 66 percent of voters under the age of 30. By income, 52 percent of voters with more than $200,000 in annual income voted for Obama. By education, his support came from those without a college degree and those with a post-graduate degree.

Interesting numbers. Then it gets weird.

    So, his victory was largely due to support from non-whites, from those under 30, from those with the lowest income and education, and from a small number of voters at the other end of those spectrums, while those of middle age, income and education tended to support John McCain.

    By religion, Obama received support from 46 percent of Protestant voters, 56 percent of Catholic voters and 62 percent of voters of other religions. BHO received 76 percent of atheist and agnostic voters.

    The Barna Research Group looked at some other interesting characteristics of Obama voters: 57 percent of those who consider themselves "lonely or isolated," 59 percent of those affected by the economic decline in "a major way," and 61 percent of those who claim they are "stressed out" supported BHO.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 10, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> He also received the majority vote of atheist, women & blacks. With that many blacks voting for him, I would assume possibly, that they voted for him just because he is black.


 
Blacks typically vote 90% for the democrat in every election.  O just raised that by 5-7 percentage points.  Which means that only about 5-7% of that particular group _MAY_ have voted based on color.  I am sure there are other variables involved, such as the war, the economy, etc. 



Artfuldodger said:


> BHO received 76 percent of atheist and agnostic voters..



This is interesting to me.  Almost all of the atheists I have ever known were very liberal, and almost always voted democrat.  This forum seems to break that mold.



Artfuldodger said:


> The Barna Research Group looked at some other interesting characteristics of Obama voters: 57 percent of those who consider themselves "lonely or isolated," 59 percent of those affected by the economic decline in "a major way," and 61 percent of those who claim they are "stressed out" supported BHO.



Well, he was / is "the one."


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 10, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Agian stop with the hitler stuff it's old, extremely weak, and intellectually deficient. Hitler was trying to build a master race, by breeding and genocide.  The citizens of Germany and even the Nazi's were not free.  They could not do anything as you suggest.
> 
> Your not grasping anything I have said.  Either you can't, which I am now beginning to believe is more probable, or refuse too,  which could be possible, based on your belief. My premise begins by accepting the nature of man is inherently good, which the bible tells you just the opposite.  I have in nowhere suggested  a social free-for-all.
> 
> I could go into detail but I believe it would be a fruitless effort.   Please stop trying to draw these lunitical connections.



This kind of post is exactly why this forum sucks now.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 10, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> This kind of post is exactly why this forum sucks now.



Sometimes necessity is harsh.


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 10, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Sometimes necessity is harsh.



Depends on who's being harsh, eh? Some people just need to be horsewhipped more than others, eh? That ain't obvious or anything. And only a 'superior' few can give their opinion?....that's where the hitler crapola comes from, thinking you are so much more intelligent and superior than others who believe in fairy tales....satan and hitler would be proud.

hitler was/is part of the antichrist, satan incarnate, and someone around here said satan rocks.....speak of being clueless

string don't worry about anyone being harsh with me, I don't expect anything else....


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 10, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> I think most Christians did vote for Obama.
> http://www.usnews.com/news/campaign.../many-religious-voters-favor-obama-poll-finds
> 
> He also received the majority vote of atheist, women & blacks. With that many blacks voting for him, I would assume possibly, that they voted for him just because he is black.
> ...



Thanks for posting that. I read that before and that's why I responded as I did about voting for Obama. 
I knew before obama was elected that he was not a Christian, which means he's part of the antichrist also....when he said he didn't know where his Christian grandma went after she passed away....say what?  what an idgit...trying to pass as a Christian, for votes.

You can't be both, you're either for Christ or antiChrist.


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 10, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> This is interesting to me.  Almost all of the atheists I have ever known were very liberal, and almost always voted democrat.  This forum seems to break that mold.



Well yeah, it breaks the mold in hindsight.....about everyone I know that voted for obama tries to say they didn't....they ain't gonna take no blame.

Yeah the democrates want to give, and give and give to the people who wanna sit on the porch all week and still eat steak for free.....oh and give anyone a free abortion on the taxpayers buck.

This is for everyone, it isn't directed towards JB in any kind of way.

Ya know, I know some of y'all think I'm stupid, but I worked for nearly 45 years. I managed not to get pregnant for nearly 40 years and yet me being a recipiant of medicare am paying for all this other crapola the government wants to give people abortions, foodstamps, housing for people who've never paid taxes, because either they didn't work or they are illegal, and I get no back whatsoever, then when I do mention it, y'all wanna tell me how clueless I am and don't wanna hear it. All the time while medicare is being cut. Thanks, men(?) for supporting the working middle class single woman......we've never had much better and obviously never will and no one who even cares. All some of y'all are worried about is what you should be able to do, and how the government should stay outta their business....Lord, have mercy Jesus on senior Americans!! My benefits have gone down, while copays go up and our big $15 a year for cost of living raist has been halted for 10 yrs.

Medicaid gets dental care.
Medicare doesn't.
Medicaid copays are about $5
Medicare copays have gone up to $35 while our benefits has gone down.
We don't get anything to help us with housing, while medicaid does and also help with electric bills and free cell phones. Medicare seniors do not qualify for any of that.

And you think I don't deserve an attitude??? that's where clueless comes in.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 11, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Well yeah, it breaks the mold in hindsight.....about everyone I know that voted for obama tries to say they didn't....they ain't gonna take no blame.
> 
> Yeah the democrates want to give, and give and give to the people who wanna sit on the porch all week and still eat steak for free.....oh and give anyone a free abortion on the taxpayers buck.
> 
> ...



Perfect example of why I scratch my head in bewilderment sometimes.
Your post is spot on. It is clear that you and others go through every day life quite savvy, prepared and well informed yet it is when it comes to religion that I see those traits go out the window. We don't like the way Gov't is involved in our lives but at least we take the time to research it and find out the truth...whether it is good or bad for us we are informed. The same research should be done about religion too.


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 11, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Perfect example of why I scratch my head in bewilderment sometimes.
> Your post is spot on. It is clear that you and others go through every day life quite savvy, prepared and well informed yet it is when it comes to religion that I see those traits go out the window. We don't like the way Gov't is involved in our lives but at least we take the time to research it and find out the truth...whether it is good or bad for us we are informed. The same research should be done about religion too.



What makes you think I'm not also spot on about Christianity?
But I am glad that you see my point in politics. For me I don't/can't seperate the two....because of who I am.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 11, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Depends on who's being harsh, eh? Some people just need to be horsewhipped more than others, eh? That ain't obvious or anything. And only a 'superior' few can give their opinion?....that's where the hitler crapola comes from, thinking you are so much more intelligent and superior than others who believe in fairy tales....satan and hitler would be proud.
> 
> hitler was/is part of the antichrist, satan incarnate, and someone around here said satan rocks.....speak of being clueless
> Apparently sarcasm is lost on you.
> ...



My harshness grew from the inistence of inserting ideas into the discussion that did not belong.  Then persistantly trying to make connections between those ideas, and the premises I put forth,  for no other purpose then to de-value them.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 11, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> What makes you think I'm not also spot on about Christianity?



I think I have made myself clear about that many times over.


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 11, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I think I have made myself clear about that many times over.



I know, me, too. You put your last post like you were surprised I had any sense at all because of my religious beliefs. I could say those same political views to someone swinging far left and they'd think like you do about my religion, that I'm stupid. But if you aren't effected by certain things, doesn't mean they are not so. Very few here are dealing with medicare, I suppose.

And I know you didn't say I'm stupid, I'm just saying, debating politics is the same as debating Christianity...if you're views are totally opposite on either subject some people have a tendancy to act as if you're ignorant or stupid. I've just been in most peoples positions here on Christianity and I see it from a lot of viewpoints without telling someone they sound ridiculous.


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 11, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> My harshness grew from the inistence of inserting ideas into the discussion that did not belong.  Then persistantly trying to make connections between those ideas, and the premises I put forth,  for no other purpose then to de-value them.



And you don't try to de-value other people's beliefs? You don't think others get frustrated by what you say? You don't try to connect dots of other posters by twisting things up?

My intention is not to devalue anything you say.....I spend most of the time trying to defend myself.....why? I don't know why.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 11, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> And you don't try to de-value other people's beliefs? You don't think others get frustrated by what you say? You don't try to connect dots of other posters by twisting things up?
> 
> My intention is not to devalue anything you say.....I spend most of the time trying to defend myself.....why? I don't know why.



 I do not attemp to de-value anyone's position by inserting wild conjectures. I have no problems with an attck on my position.  I do however expect refraint from persistantly trying to fabricate connections between unassociated and  incompatible ideas and my position. I can only assume that such an attack is malicious in nature, and is an attempt to devalue my position with disinformation, or there is a comprehenion problem.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 11, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> I know, me, too. You put your last post like you were surprised I had any sense at all because of my religious beliefs. I could say those same political views to someone swinging far left and they'd think like you do about my religion, that I'm stupid. But if you aren't effected by certain things, doesn't mean they are not so. Very few here are dealing with medicare, I suppose.
> 
> And I know you didn't say I'm stupid, I'm just saying, debating politics is the same as debating Christianity...if you're views are totally opposite on either subject some people have a tendancy to act as if you're ignorant or stupid. I've just been in most peoples positions here on Christianity and I see it from a lot of viewpoints without telling someone they sound ridiculous.



You use facts to come to your conclusions about politics. It is clear you do not base your political findings on the writings of invisible beings telling wild tales that cannot be proven. You look at the facts and make your decision based from those facts.
The same cannot be said about how you come to your religious beliefs.


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 11, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> I do not attemp to de-value anyone's position by inserting wild conjectures. I have no problems with an attck on my position.  I do however expect refraint from persistantly trying to fabricate connections between unassociated and  incompatible ideas and my position. I can only assume that such an attack is malicious in nature, and is an attempt to devalue my position with disinformation, or there is a comprehenion problem.




must be comprehension....since I'm so delusioned by fairy tales and such.


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 11, 2012)

bullethead said:


> You use facts to come to your conclusions about politics. It is clear you do not base your political findings on the writings of invisible beings telling wild tales that cannot be proven. You look at the facts and make your decision based from those facts.
> The same cannot be said about how you come to your religious beliefs.



Well facts that we know of at the moment, of course.
I  told people they were believing in wild tales when they voted for Obama, so I guess if you go by that I foretold the future....either that or some invisible somebody convicted me of such.

If I felt like diggin' up some of my posts from 4 years ago, almost everything I said about obama and all his crapola has happened.....I guess I'm just so smart and informed and wise that I just knew what was gonna happen...even I could write a history book.

I can take in consideration invisible people existing as much as I can believe I evolved from a monkey. Since you brought up tall tales... What I'd like to know is what happened to evolution, who/what decided we were at the top of the food chain? Those are some 'facts' I'd like to see proof of, rather than a tall tale theory some guy dreamed up while smokin' crack....hahahahahahahaha. I'm just messin' widja.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 11, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Well facts that we know of at the moment, of course.
> I  told people they were believing in wild tales when they voted for Obama, so I guess if you go by that I foretold the future....either that or some invisible somebody convicted me of such.
> 
> If I felt like diggin' up some of my posts from 4 years ago, almost everything I said about obama and all his crapola has happened.....I guess I'm just so smart and informed and wise that I just knew what was gonna happen...even I could write a history book.
> ...



Chance, necessity, natural selection and nature decide the fate of millions of species daily. We are not the same people that lived 100 years ago let alone 5,000, let alone 100,000+. Evolution is happening right now, it just takes longer than you can imagine to notice minute changes. You won't notice it in a lifetime but the answers you are asking for are available if you choose to research it yourself.
You should not believe that you evolved from a monkey. It did not happen that way at all. Species do not "turn into" another species. We did not evolve from monkeys.


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 11, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Chance, necessity, natural selection and nature decide the fate of millions of species daily. We are not the same people that lived 100 years ago let alone 5,000, let alone 100,000+. Evolution is happening right now, it just takes longer than you can imagine to notice minute changes. You won't notice it in a lifetime but the answers you are asking for are available if you choose to research it yourself.
> You should not believe that you evolved from a monkey. It did not happen that way at all. Species do not "turn into" another species. We did not evolve from monkeys.



Well I learned that in a high school history book, science book or something and even in jr high we learned about evolution.....that we evolved from apes.....I guess more than just the bible has mistakes in it, eh?
I don't care enough to research it, I don't care if we evolved which is possible or whether we were created by God which is also possible.

But thanks for letting me know that other stuff I've learned from books can be incorrect. I should sic y'all on those people that wrote those lies in those books, that'd teach 'em. lol...


----------



## bullethead (Apr 11, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Well I learned that in a high school history book, science book or something and even in jr high we learned about evolution.....that we evolved from apes.....I guess more than just the bible has mistakes in it, eh?
> I don't care enough to research it, I don't care if we evolved which is possible or whether we were created by God which is also possible.
> 
> But thanks for letting me know that other stuff I've learned from books can be incorrect. I should sic y'all on those people that wrote those lies in those books, that'd teach 'em. lol...



First you said monkeys, now it is apes. In reality I am just guessing it really said an ape-like ancestor, but you stick to what you think it said. I am out of high school 25 years this year and I can't specifically remember what each class taught but I do know that for the past 20 years ape-like ancestor was what I have been seeing.

But yes, please let the proper channels know of the error. and also if it is not too much trouble give me the name of the textbook you used to get that info from. I'd like to research it a little.


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 11, 2012)

bullethead said:


> First you said monkeys, now it is apes. In reality I am just guessing it really said an ape-like ancestor, but you stick to what you think it said. I am out of high school 25 years this year and I can't specifically remember what each class taught but I do know that for the past 20 years ape-like ancestor was what I have been seeing.
> 
> But yes, please let the proper channels know of the error. and also if it is not too much trouble give me the name of the textbook you used to get that info from. I'd like to research it a little.



Well let's see, I was in high school beginning in 1963, graduated 67. Jr high then was 7,8,9 so 9th grade would've been 62....so 59-62.
I think it was probably science....and y'all can believe this or not I was always on the a/b honor roll.
I'll see if I can figure out the books. About all I recall now, was a monkey or ape or whatever walking and then a cave man and then on up. But I musta understood it at the time...maybe it was a chimp...I don't know (nor care) the difference, they all look alike to me.....

It could've been world history...we could take that in the 10th or 12th, I took it in the 10th to get it over with,aaaaaaaannnnnnnnnddddddddddd to be in the same class as my first husband  who was in the 12th. He's in heaven now, though.


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 11, 2012)

Mr bullet.....I don't know how to look up and find textbooks. I can tell you that I was at Lee H Edwards HS in Asheville NC,  and also at Hall Fletcher in jr high in Asheville. We didn't keep our books then, I don't know if kids do now or not....I'm too old to pay attention to that now....lol.

My 8th grade science teacher was a Mr Perry, he was a trip....I betcha he smoked weed and stuff now that I think about it.....lol.  Me and a girl named Sheila Powell were his 'pets'.....I pierced her ears in the girls bathroom at lunch and she slide right down the wall, fainted....lol.  Because of him we didn't get in trouble or kicked outta school. A big ol' sewing needle and some rubbing alcohol.....ewwwwwwwww.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 15, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> What even are talking about? If your intelligence was insulted you just showed it was rightly so. Whining?  If speaking the truth is whing then color me a whiner.  I make my stand on my beliefs that a better world is achievable. Where freedom and justice reign supreme before anything.  That is my fight.  You have no idea what you are talking about so I suggest you stop.  Until you can come to the table with something better then to say you are wrong, with nothing to show for it, just bow out. I care not for my credibility with someone who is speaking beyond there own credentials.



Did you go to church on Easter Sunday?


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 15, 2012)

I did.


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 15, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> I did.



Yo mama?


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 17, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> I did.



That, Bishop, is what I am talking about.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 17, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> That, Bishop, is what I am talking about.



And you still have no idea _what_ your talking about.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 18, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> And you still have no idea _what_ your talking about.



You are a hoot Bishop. My stance is clear, yours, not so much.

At least God has you going to church. No matter how he gets you there, he gets you there.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 18, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> You are a hoot Bishop. My stance is clear, yours, not so much.
> 
> At least God has you going to church. No matter how he gets you there, he gets you there.



God had nothing to with it.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 19, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> God had nothing to with it.



Probably keeping the peace, right?   I know a few agnostics / atheists that will go to church on the "big days" in an effort to be supportive of their family.  Nothing wrong with that.  In fact, I think it's cool they are willing to do so.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 19, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Probably keeping the peace, right?   I know a few agnostics / atheists that will go to church on the "big days" in an effort to be supportive of their family.  Nothing wrong with that.  In fact, I think it's cool they are willing to do so.



I have no issues with going to church.  Somehow, the scientist who believes logic is a language (sorry ted but you are also wrong about that), also believes going to church compromises my beliefs, which he then readily admits he doesn't know what constitutes my beliefs.  


When I go to church, listen intently, and it actually reinforces my position.  I do however get myself in trouble becuase when its over and we leave I want to discuss some of the things that were talked about.  My wife does not like what I have to say.  Its ok, I didn't marry her for her religious views.  I think it drives her crazy that she knows her children won't get the indoctrination she had (though I don't think she looks at it exactly that way).


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 19, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> I do however get myself in trouble becuase when its over and we leave I want to discuss some of the things that were talked about.  My wife does not like what I have to say.



My wife and I do not see eye-to-eye on faith either.  She is more of a simple-faith believer, and I try to make everything complicated.  So we end up disagreeing after church also about what was said and why it was said, maybe just a little differently than you (my wife and I are both believers, I just don't fit well in church these days).


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 19, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I just don't fit well in church these days).



That is because you refuse to check your brain in at the front door. That is a good thing.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 19, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> I have no issues with going to church.  Somehow, the scientist who believes logic is a language (sorry ted but you are also wrong about that), also believes going to church compromises my beliefs, which he then readily admits he doesn't know what constitutes my beliefs.
> 
> 
> When I go to church, listen intently, and it actually reinforces my position.  I do however get myself in trouble becuase when its over and we leave I want to discuss some of the things that were talked about.  My wife does not like what I have to say.  Its ok, I didn't marry her for her religious views.  I think it drives her crazy that she knows her children won't get the indoctrination she had (though I don't think she looks at it exactly that way).



Bishop - even Asath agrees about logic being a language. This is a clear case of your stubborness. You are not always right.

God has cracked your stuborness by getting you to church. I know you don't believe He had anything to do with it, but you are wrong about that for certain.

He has blessed you with a believeing wife, and I bet it is just a matter of time before something happens in church (or everyday life) that changes your mind 180 degrees.

I'm gonna pray for you Bishop. I am gonna ask all the people in my prayer circle to pray for you too. (that is a lot of folks!) Keep that in mind next time you visit God's house. With Brotherly Love, Ted


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 19, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> God had nothing to with it.



Well we're well aware of that.....it's obvious.  Birds of a feather ya know.  Maybe y'all made somebody's mama happy anyway....maybe not from God, but kind of ya anyway.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 19, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Bishop - even Asath agrees about logic being a language. This is a clear case of your stubborness. You are not always right.
> 
> God has cracked your stuborness by getting you to church. I know you don't believe He had anything to do with it, but you are wrong about that for certain.
> 
> ...



It doesn't sound like he's describing a language here:

Asath


> Logic is a METHOD of thinking.  It is not a thought unto itself.  Logic is the method of the analysis of a thought.  Each proposition, in the sequence of thinking, needs to be validated, independently, PRIOR to the conclusion.  Logic is an endless sequence of If: Then propositions, each needing to prove legitimacy by the simple demonstration that the conclusion MUST follow the premise, and can have no other outcome.  Proposing an outcome that is not a necessary result of the original premise is deemed – ‘illogical.’  Proposing a premise that is in and of itself assumptive and unproven, then reaching conclusions on that basis, is also deemed illogical.  So, you need to start with a single solid and irrefutable fact (the premise), in order to try on a ‘logical’ argument towards one’s conclusion.  Anything less refutes itself right out of the gate, and cannot stand up to the rigors of intelligent thought.



I thought I was wrong once but then I found out I was right.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 22, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> It doesn't sound like he's describing a language here:
> 
> Asath
> 
> ...



He's typing over your head Bishop. The quote of Asath you posted is quite clear, and proves my point for me. Many thanks!


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 22, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> He's typing over your head Bishop. The quote of Asath you posted is quite clear, and proves my point for me. Many thanks!



Obtuse beyond obtuse. Read Asath first sentence a couple of times, and let it sink in.


----------



## JFS (Apr 22, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I know a few agnostics / atheists that will go to church on the "big days" in an effort to be supportive of their family.  Nothing wrong with that.  In fact, I think it's cool they are willing to do so.



I used to do that, but the problem is the big days focus on the stuff that is really hard to swallow - virgin birth and the resurection.  I found it is easier to go on other days that are personally meaningful, like when they are performing or get confirmed, but don't necessarily focus on the crazy stuff.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 23, 2012)

Here ya go Ted I though I would help you out.  I know, I know. It makes it difficult to tell me I'm wrong and such, with those pesky facts getting in the way and all that.



> lan·guageâ€‚ â€‚/ËˆlæÅ‹gwÉªdÊ’/ Show Spelled[lang-gwij] Show IPA
> noun
> 1. a body of words and the systems for their use common to a people who are of the same community or nation, the same geographical area, or the same cultural tradition: the two languages of Belgium; a Bantu language; the French language; the Yiddish language.
> 2. communication by voice in the distinctively human manner, using arbitrary sounds in conventional ways with conventional meanings; speech.
> ...





> log·icâ€‚ â€‚/ËˆlÉ’dÊ’Éªk/ Show Spelled[loj-ik] Show IPA
> noun
> 1. the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
> 2. a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic.
> ...



Unlike you I enjoy _proving_ people wrong, not just telling them their wrong. 

Thats twice in 1 thread.   NEXT!


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 27, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Here ya go Ted I though I would help you out.  I know, I know. It makes it difficult to tell me I'm wrong and such, with those pesky facts getting in the way and all that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"Logic is a science." Science, if you understand it, is a language. If you don't understand it, than you are "Bishop." And you write silly posts about how smart you are.

And then you say things like "obtuse" because those are big words that you don't really understand but sound really good in an arguement. And so on, and so on.

You totally crack me up Bishop. Please, go for three times in the same thread.


----------



## Asath (Apr 28, 2012)

Science, if you understand it, is NOT a language.  

French, or Bantu, for example, are languages.  

Science is the empirical method of testing ideas, comparing results through repeated tests, and arriving at results that can be duplicated time and again under most if not all conditions.  

There is no 'language' other than the one used by the native speakers to describe their results.  If one doesn't understand that much, then one ought stop trying to vilify science in favor of the supernaturally derived nonsense that cannot be tested, cannot be verified, cannot be demonstrated, and cannot be shown to exist in any form -- aside the silly.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 28, 2012)

Asath said:


> Science, if you understand it, is NOT a language.
> 
> French, or Bantu, for example, are languages.
> 
> ...



Again, for the challenged.

1. Formulate a hypothesis.
2. Test the hypothesis.
3. Accept or reject the hypothesis.
4. Repeat.

By its own definition, it IS a language.
Deny it, and refuse the definition of science its self, and philosophize.


----------



## Asath (Apr 28, 2012)

"Again, for the challenged.

1. Formulate a hypothesis.
2. Test the hypothesis.
3. Accept or reject the hypothesis.
4. Repeat.

By its own definition, it IS a language.
Deny it, and refuse the definition of science its self, and philosophize."

I suppose that under this particular set of parameters, everyone in the world, excepting yourself, of course, is challenged.

But for most of us, who have actually done things and had them work, independently of ourselves, the idea of formulating a thought, testing that thought, and then having that test repeated, verifiably, by SOMEBODY ELSE, and then by a whole bunch of OTHERS, in order to form a reliable body of evidence, is known as the empirical method.  This is science.  It is not, by definition, a LANGUAGE.  It is a methodology.  

Perhaps you are confusing knowledge with belief.  When one says that one 'believes' something, that tends to imply that one KNOWS.  

If one does not KNOW, then either one is fudging the results, deliberately skewing the data, or is just plain bat crazy.

A language is a means of communication.  A science, on the other hand, is a means of investigating.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 28, 2012)

Like I said Obtuse beyond obtuse.  Perhaps its easier like ted and make up things as we go along. 

Ted Have you realized the times that I have proven you wrong that I actually provided sources other than myself to back my position.  Yet you continuosly say I'm wrong, completly ignoring were I got the information.  Yet you on the other hand, draw on no other source than yourself.  Claiming YOU know, yet providing NOTHING to back your position.  So how about care to provide ANYTHING, that backs you position? Or are you continue to argue that you are right and the rest of the world is not?


<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/angi1vwUkQc?version=3&feature=player_detailpage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/angi1vwUkQc?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 28, 2012)

Asath said:


> "Again, for the challenged.
> 
> 1. Formulate a hypothesis.
> 2. Test the hypothesis.
> ...



Or perhaps I should word my attacks like this?


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 28, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Like I said Obtuse beyond obtuse.  Perhaps its easier like ted and make up things as we go along.
> 
> Ted Have you realized the times that I have proven you wrong that I actually provided sources other than myself to back my position.  Yet you continuosly say I'm wrong, completly ignoring were I got the information.  Yet you on the other hand, draw on no other source than yourself.  Claiming YOU know, yet providing NOTHING to back your position.  So how about care to provide ANYTHING, that backs you position? Or are you continue to argue that you are right and the rest of the world is not?
> 
> ...



And another finely worded attack.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 28, 2012)

Again ted, Do you have anything to support your position?

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/angi1vwUkQc?version=3&feature=player_embedded"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/angi1vwUkQc?version=3&feature=player_embedded" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 28, 2012)

Nothing more than you do Bishop. All your quotes and sources don't prove anything. Just because lots of people agree on something, it doesn't make it correct.

At one point in history, the world was flat.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 28, 2012)

So in other words you have absolutely nothing to stregnthen your position.  Go figure.


----------



## Asath (Apr 29, 2012)

Again, just to stay focused – Science is NOT a language.  

Science is a Method.

Belief creates a language of its own, for the sole purpose of impeding and preventing investigation and methodology.  Things in the realm of Belief are true simply by declaration, which automatically makes those declarations suspicious.  

History reveals quite handily that Belief, since the inception, has yielded to Science steadily and without exception – because Science PROVES the claims made, rather than just making them.  It took close to two thousand years for Believers to quit killing scientists simply for the sin of being right.  Science has not yet returned the favor.

But if you are using modern electronic devices; and know that the Earth is not the center of the universe; and understand just why when you throw something up in the air it comes back down; and can grasp the idea that those twinkling lights in the night sky are NOT, actually, the firmament of God’s heaven; then just those understandings alone have invalidated the entire history of Belief.

Oops.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 30, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Again, for the challenged.
> 
> 1. Formulate a hypothesis.
> 2. Test the hypothesis.
> ...



sci·enceâ€‚ â€‚/ËˆsaÉªÉ™ns/ Show Spelled[sahy-uhns] Show IPA 
noun 
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences. 
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. 
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science. 
4. systematized knowledge in general. 
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study. 


Again tell me the how the dictionary is wrong, and you have have the right answer.  You just can't provide ANYTHING that supports your answer.


----------



## ted_BSR (May 3, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> sci·enceâ€‚ â€‚/ËˆsaÉªÉ™ns/ Show Spelled[sahy-uhns] Show IPA
> noun
> 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
> 2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
> ...



Where is the scientific method in this definition? Yeah, it is wrong. The scientific method defines science. No way around that.


----------



## TheBishop (May 4, 2012)

> scientific method
> noun
> a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested



Still nothing about science being a language.


----------



## ted_BSR (May 4, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Still nothing about science being a language.



I actually wrote a paper on this subject in my senior year of college. The summarizing sentence was "Science does not lead us to any great truth, it is merely a language we use to describe things." I expected a lot of red ink and a sliding C-. I was surprised that the only red ink on my paper was an "A" awarded by my biology professor. He is a PHD scientist. He is agnostic. I am gonna go with his opinion on the matter, and not yours Bishop. He is much more qualified than either of us.


----------



## Asath (May 5, 2012)

“The scientific method defines science. No way around that.”

Agreed.  

Find, in that method, a single justification for taking anything at all on face value, and ‘Believing,’ as opposed to testing and verifying.  

Got anything?

You know the drill – any assertion, or result, that cannot be duplicated independently is automatically held as invalid.  

Prove, and you will be believed.  There is nothing mysterious here.  

Rational thought, and the progress of same, leaves no room these days for being dragged back into the Middle Ages by the anchor of ‘Belief.’  

Show.  Do not tell.


----------



## ted_BSR (May 10, 2012)

Asath said:


> “The scientific method defines science. No way around that.”
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> ...



The only thing mysterious here is your understanding of the scientific method. You have it all wrong. I would spell it out again, but I grow tired of repeating myself.

You clearly DO NOT UNDERSTAND the scientific method.


----------



## Asath (May 11, 2012)

Then explain it to me, under the conditions you seem to lend to it.

My understanding is that a thought is put forward, and then that thought is tested, experimentally, under every condition the experimenter can imagine, and controlled for every possible condition that may skew the result.  If the result is consistently the same, regardless of the variables, then the experimenter puts his idea in front of the broader community of scientists, publishing not only his results but also his methods.

Then the challenge is on -- and the results must then be subjected to not only peer rhetoric and endless challenges of peer belief -- but must be verified by actual experimental duplication.  If a contention cannot be duplicated, independently, by anyone at all, then the 'Scientist' who published the idea in the first place is roundly laughed out of his lecture hall.

Empiricism is a harsh task-master, and NOTHING is true until it is verified, independently and repeatedly, both by the interested and by the disinterested.  That is the Scientific Method.  We test and we test and we test and we question and we question and we question -- then test some more. 

Only then are even tentative conclusions made.

(Not once, in the Scientific Method, is the Bible consulted.)


----------



## TheBishop (May 12, 2012)

Ted you have a habit forming.  One that cuases you to state that everyone else is wrong, yet bring absolutely nothing to back your position.  So you wrote a paper once who cares.  I wrote several, got several A's.   I don't care what your professor claims or you claim, I want evidence that supports your claims.  And you seem unwilling or unable, to produce.  So to quote Asath.



> Show. Do not tell.


----------



## ted_BSR (May 13, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Ted you have a habit forming.  One that cuases you to state that everyone else is wrong, yet bring absolutely nothing to back your position.  So you wrote a paper once who cares.  I wrote several, got several A's.   I don't care what your professor claims or you claim, I want evidence that supports your claims.  And you seem unwilling or unable, to produce.  So to quote Asath.



So, now you are the habit police?
I don't really care what you want.
No one here comes or goes by your leave.


----------



## ted_BSR (May 13, 2012)

Asath said:


> Then explain it to me, under the conditions you seem to lend to it.
> 
> My understanding is that a thought is put forward, and then that thought is tested, experimentally, under every condition the experimenter can imagine, and controlled for every possible condition that may skew the result.  If the result is consistently the same, regardless of the variables, then the experimenter puts his idea in front of the broader community of scientists, publishing not only his results but also his methods.
> 
> ...



No debate about the scientific method's absence in the Bible. It is not a scientific book (I guess you knew that).

You are pretty close with your definition here, but several small points that you have incorrect, change the outcome too much.

1. It is not a thought; it is a hypothesis (an educated guess, just to be crystal clear)

2. An experiment is designed and executed to test the hypothesis (not every controllable variable that can be conceived of). I don't think that is possible.

3. This is where you have strayed the farthest. The results of the experiment either support or do not support the hypothesis. Nothing is proven.

4. The rest you have suggested, highlighted in red above has nothing to do with the scientific method.

5. And repeat, you are correct about that.

I like what you said about "only tentative conclusions are made". Science does not prove anything, I agree with that.


----------



## Asath (May 13, 2012)

“No debate about the scientific method's absence in the Bible. It is not a scientific book . . . “   

I made no reference to the Bible CONTAINING any evidence of the empirical method – I observed that empiricism does not consult Holy Books in the independent search for verifiable truth.

“1. It is not a thought; it is a hypothesis . . . “  

I would humble submit that a ‘hypothesis,’ similar to a ‘belief,’ is some sort of guess as to what MIGHT be true, and as such, had to have been dreamed up by a some person or another – such things seldom arrive already carved on rocks – and as such it would have to qualify as a thought.  Synonyms for ‘hypothesis’ include assumption, conjecture, guess, presumption, supposition, and theory.  Merely changing the word does not change the event – somebody thought it up.

“2. An experiment is designed and executed to test the hypothesis (not every controllable variable that can be conceived of). I don't think that is possible.”

Again, I did not contend that the experimental process is designed to test the VARIBLES themselves.  It is designed, if done responsibly by actual scientists, to test whether of not the ‘hypothesis’ holds up in the face of those variables.  In order to test anything at all there must first be conditions under which it is falsifiable – the old ‘if you jump into the air on a speeding train will you be thrown out the back window?’ idea – If a scientists designs a substance that kills a certain disease in petri dishes and lab rats, but kills every human who ingests it, then we pretty much call that a failed hypothesis.  Even if it only kills the left-handed, or Chevrolet drivers, we still won’t let them sell the stuff – Every variable that can be conceived must be taken into account and tested for PRIOR to announcing a successful truth.

“The results of the experiment either support or do not support the hypothesis. Nothing is proven.”

Nonsense.  If nothing is proven, by this thinking, then nothing can be true.  But gravity is pretty much a given, and Polio has been mainly wiped out, and electricity gets through to your computer even when it is raining – a quad-core processor, a microwave oven, the internal combustion engine, the International Space Station, triple-bypass surgery, the light bulb, nuclear fission, celestial mechanics, and the action of yeast on simple barley malt and water, among hundreds of thousands of other examples,  are pretty well gone from the realm of ‘Not Proven.’

In order for a thought (or ‘hypothesis,’ is you wish) to graduate from nutball idea or odd belief to the status of full-fledged Truth, it is first subjected to dozens and hundreds and thousands of tests, by dozens and hundreds and thousands of different people, employing dozens and hundreds and thousands of variables, and each step is taken using quantifiable, measurable, DUPLICATABLE methods.

And I probably use the word ‘tentative’ differently that you, since I’m not actively seeking some sort of ‘GOTCHA!’ to prove that the non-empirical is of equal or superior value to the empirical.  ‘Tentative’ only means that EVERYTHING is subject to continued and continuous review and questioning.  Will nuclear fusion reactors work in a vacuum or in zero gravity?  (Yes.)  Will a condition of Absolute Zero temperature cause all living things to die?  (No.)  Will a condition of Absolute Zero cause a nuclear fusion reaction, or a fission reaction, to abruptly stop?  (Dunno.)

And also – as to your ‘highlighted in red’ comment – nonsense.  Peer review and the repeated duplication of results is one of the very cores of the Scientific Method – no result exists until someone else, and then many more, have found the same result.


----------



## ted_BSR (May 14, 2012)

Asath said:


> “No debate about the scientific method's absence in the Bible. It is not a scientific book . . . “
> 
> I made no reference to the Bible CONTAINING any evidence of the empirical method – I observed that empiricism does not consult Holy Books in the independent search for verifiable truth. Agreed.
> 
> ...



So, responses in blue. And one more time for Asath.

1. Formulate a hypothesis
2. Test the hypothesis
3. The results of the test will support or not support the hypothesis.
4. Accept or reject the hypothesis
5. Repeat


----------



## Asath (May 14, 2012)

“The scientific method says nothing about this. You have inserted it. It is common practice in the scientific community, but it is not part of the method.”

Sir, perhaps you have a document in your possession that misleads --  A method IS the common practice.  Within science, a doubtful aberration is a report from ANYONE who claims results and truths that cannot be verified independently, BY OTHER SCIENTIFIC PEERS.  You may recall the recent hoo-ha that the press jumped all over at the report of a very expensive result which indicated that neutrinos may actually travel faster than light.  The scientists who read that result IMMEDIATELY appealed to all others to review their data, their methods, and their result, and conduct their own tests.  The result was quickly found to be an instrument error.  THAT is the scientific method – if you have something indicating that it is purely personal, or is not at all subject to verification, we’d all be curious to see that.  

Peer review is the scientific community’s means of sharing ideas, data, results, and experimental methods, and not only asking but often begging others to prove them wrong, or right, through experimentation of their own.  That IS the Method.  Heck, you may recall that the entire Internet was not designed by Al Gore, AOL, or, Bill Gates, but had existed for years as a means of data sharing between the scientific community for just this purpose – letting folks like us have access to it was a disaster (but not really, because, being scientists and all, only the best of the hackers can access even 25% of the actual content).  

There IS no Method outside of the one that is actually employed, and, again, if you have a different one, that all of the world has been getting wrong – please share it with us.

“We believe certain things (like your examples) to be true, but the scientific method does not PROVE them.”

How very philosophically pedantic.  BUT – the scientific method DOES invite you to DISPROVE them.  And will freely share their data, methods, and results to date.  Until someone hits a baseball into the air, and it never comes back down, you’re doing nothing more than blowing smoke at superior knowledge – a PROOF, scientifically, is something that can’t be demonstrated to STOP happening, no matter which Book you’ve read, or which charismatic preacher with a bad toupee your parents forced you into a tent with.  Throw the ball up – the ball falls back down – this isn’t a Belief.  Happens every time.

A Belief, on the other hand, is something that can’t be demonstrated to have EVER happened.  That is why it isn’t a fact, and thus holds itself immune to actual standards of independent Proof.  Science is transparent – Belief is opaque.

( And since I thought we were speaking of science, this one took me by surprise -- “ . . . but what about "absolute zero (temperature)??? Farenheit, Celsius, Kelvin? What is it?”   I apologize for jumping ahead into actual science, and assuming terms to be understood – that was unfair of me.

Absolute Zero:  On the most commonly used scale {the thermodynamic scale], this represents the lowest possible temperature and is given the value zero – it is referred to, by scientists, as the absolute zero of temperature.  Terms differ, on the thermodynamic scale, and ideas like Fahrenheit, Celsius, and Kelvin no longer obtain.  In macroscopic terms, absolute zero is the temperature at which a system would undergo a reversible isothermal process without heat transfer.  In microscopic terms, the thermal energy of the atoms of a system is zero at absolute zero, except for the zero-point energy attributed to the atoms by their very existence.  The third law of thermodynamics lays this process out in some detail, and holds that absolute zero is a well-defined temperature for each condition, as it has been observed to be, but is not actually attainable except as the limit to an actually infinite series of processes.  For the unschooled -- this is similar to the idea that it is not ‘attainable’ for a human body to reach the speed of light – all natural processes observe limits, and not all of those processes or limits are exactly the same.  Humans can’t live in water, fish can’t live on land – to use a third-grade example of the thought.

I ought not be held responsible for teaching science to those who seek to refute it, while they are living off the benefits it provides, but if one does not know, one ought not pretend such understanding, while still typing . . .)


----------



## ted_BSR (May 15, 2012)

Asath said:


> “The scientific method says nothing about this. You have inserted it. It is common practice in the scientific community, but it is not part of the method.”
> 
> Sir, perhaps you have a document in your possession that misleads --  A method IS the common practice.  Within science, a doubtful aberration is a report from ANYONE who claims results and truths that cannot be verified independently, BY OTHER SCIENTIFIC PEERS.  You may recall the recent hoo-ha that the press jumped all over at the report of a very expensive result which indicated that neutrinos may actually travel faster than light.  The scientists who read that result IMMEDIATELY appealed to all others to review their data, their methods, and their result, and conduct their own tests.  The result was quickly found to be an instrument error.  THAT is the scientific method – if you have something indicating that it is purely personal, or is not at all subject to verification, we’d all be curious to see that.
> 
> ...



Then you should stop typing, sir.


----------

