Nobody really cares about RIAA lawyers except nerds. There are lots of causes, but the problem you discuss became manifest when they decided to impeach a president over a blow job.
“During his 1956 presidential campaign, a woman called out to Adlai E. Stevenson: "Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!". Stevenson called back "That's not enough, madam, we need a majority!"
You're out of luck, my friend, if you look to America for answers.
The formation of the sun, the moon, the earth, the words of the prophets, the creation of man, birth and death, were all miracles from god for ages upon ages, but in recent times each of these has been shown to arise from natural causes.
In earlier posts you talked about forgiveness from god upon death, which suggests that you still believe in an eternal soul. This is yet another supernatural understanding that has been outdated by our growing understanding, though very few have tried to come to terms with this yet.
Plato can suck it. He got the whole thing backwards and the West has been paying for it ever since. Lao Tzu, thinking along the same lines, did much better.
And yet no-one previously had blind faith in galaxies.
What's more close minded, assuming something exists which you don't know, or that the universe is not to be understood through faith?
How would we ever have been able to understand galaxies if we did not have people who could believe in a universe where God had not made earth and man the center of it?
Explain what? Most religious people don't actually meet or hear god, and the fraction of the populace that experiences visual or auditory hallucinations at some point in their lives is pretty high, above 10%.
I don't know which group of people formed this consensus, but religion has been in full on retreat from science for hundreds of years, and it shows no signs of stopping.
Why would anyone claim to know the answer to "why is there something instead of nothing?", or even claim to know whether this is a reasonable question?
Oh please. Religion says that god sacrificed himself to himself so that he could forgive us for some crime he'd planned for us to commit, or sometimes it says that if you do evil in this life, you'll come back as a bug in the next life. These are the weird kinds of things religion actually says.
If some people get morals from religion, great, but religion typically compromises the moral code and gives people excuses to violate it. Don't steal (but God helps those who help themselves), Don't kill (except in the name of God), Be honest (except about received doctrine), Work hard (but God will provide), keep trying (but no worries, the next life is better), Be faithful to your wife (but God will forgive), Obey and appreciate your parents (unless they turn their backs on God), Help others without expecting help in return (but God will repay you), Forgive others (but God will render justice), From time to time think about your life (your life, fine, but don't doubt that God loves you).
Not really, it's just the weird western religions like Christianity, Judaism, and Islam that say they are the one true religion. You certainly won't find many buddhist, taoists or hindus that think that way. Perhaps that's why they get along pretty well, despite being very different, while the Western religions are always at each other's throats despite being almost identical.
Then who the heck voted to re-elect him? He'd already dropped the ball on terrorism, lied us into Iraq, broke the budget, ok'd torture, and instituted illegal spying by 2004. The only thing we didn't know at that point was that he was looking the other way while Wallstreet was gambling away the economy.
Are you just making up definitions or is that Beckian? Glenn Beck has been railing against progressives so I'll guess the latter.
The definition of progressive is really simple, it just isn't anything that you think: progressives believe that society can be improved for all through organized action, including government policy.
Liberals are people who value personal liberty, the rights and well being of the individual person.
Conservatives are people who place importance on laws, tradition and hard learned lessons.
The kind of person your describing might be properly called a Statist, or even Authoritarian.
So the Iraq war for instance, killed tens of thousands of innocent people, so it's not liberal, violated national and international law, had not prospect of completing it's objectives, and was a stupid move, so it's not conservative, and it's not progressive because it destroyed a whole chunk of society, but it's surely statist.
Gun control ain't liberal, it's not conservative, but it is statist and progressive (if it really improves society).
Social action to end segregation was liberal, wasn't conservative, was anti-statist, but was still progressive.
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody really cares about RIAA lawyers except nerds. There are lots of causes, but the problem you discuss became manifest when they decided to impeach a president over a blow job.
“During his 1956 presidential campaign, a woman called out to Adlai E. Stevenson: "Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!". Stevenson called back "That's not enough, madam, we need a majority!"
You're out of luck, my friend, if you look to America for answers.
In the common law system judges create law. That's the kind of system America uses.
The formation of the sun, the moon, the earth, the words of the prophets, the creation of man, birth and death, were all miracles from god for ages upon ages, but in recent times each of these has been shown to arise from natural causes.
In earlier posts you talked about forgiveness from god upon death, which suggests that you still believe in an eternal soul. This is yet another supernatural understanding that has been outdated by our growing understanding, though very few have tried to come to terms with this yet.
You said in an earlier post that the only sin that required repentance was Idolatry, I don't think murder counts as Idolatry.
That may the way you see it, but I was replying to a muslim who made it clear that he thinks the murderer doesn't have to repent.
If a point where god breaks the laws of physics is later explained to be in accord with the laws, then god is diminished.
The last hundreds of years have seen a multitude of supernatural events brought into the realm of the natural, and this trend continues unabated.
If you murder 100 people, god will still forgive you.
haven't been discoved, yes. Unknowable, no.
Plato can suck it. He got the whole thing backwards and the West has been paying for it ever since. Lao Tzu, thinking along the same lines, did much better.
It isn't simple, and you god is just god of the gaps in this case, doomed to smaller and smaller roles.
And yet no-one previously had blind faith in galaxies.
What's more close minded, assuming something exists which you don't know, or that the universe is not to be understood through faith?
How would we ever have been able to understand galaxies if we did not have people who could believe in a universe where God had not made earth and man the center of it?
What's bashing about it? That's pretty much how you presented god in earlier posts.
The whole bit about god coming down from the heavens and moving cities around. It turns out that's bullshit.
Which is the flip side: a lot of religions can make you feel ok about doing bad things.
Explain what? Most religious people don't actually meet or hear god, and the fraction of the populace that experiences visual or auditory hallucinations at some point in their lives is pretty high, above 10%.
I don't know which group of people formed this consensus, but religion has been in full on retreat from science for hundreds of years, and it shows no signs of stopping.
Why would anyone claim to know the answer to "why is there something instead of nothing?", or even claim to know whether this is a reasonable question?
Oh please. Religion says that god sacrificed himself to himself so that he could forgive us for some crime he'd planned for us to commit, or sometimes it says that if you do evil in this life, you'll come back as a bug in the next life. These are the weird kinds of things religion actually says.
If some people get morals from religion, great, but religion typically compromises the moral code and gives people excuses to violate it. Don't steal (but God helps those who help themselves), Don't kill (except in the name of God), Be honest (except about received doctrine), Work hard (but God will provide), keep trying (but no worries, the next life is better), Be faithful to your wife (but God will forgive), Obey and appreciate your parents (unless they turn their backs on God), Help others without expecting help in return (but God will repay you), Forgive others (but God will render justice), From time to time think about your life (your life, fine, but don't doubt that God loves you).
Not really, it's just the weird western religions like Christianity, Judaism, and Islam that say they are the one true religion. You certainly won't find many buddhist, taoists or hindus that think that way. Perhaps that's why they get along pretty well, despite being very different, while the Western religions are always at each other's throats despite being almost identical.
I can't imagine why you'd ever stop thinking about it.
Then who the heck voted to re-elect him? He'd already dropped the ball on terrorism, lied us into Iraq, broke the budget, ok'd torture, and instituted illegal spying by 2004. The only thing we didn't know at that point was that he was looking the other way while Wallstreet was gambling away the economy.
Do we really need an informative Doom review?
The economy collapsed in 2008 on a far vaster scale than any economic damage caused by 9/11. Bush was still president.
If a woman can marry a man but a man can't marry a man then they aren't being treated equally.
Are you just making up definitions or is that Beckian? Glenn Beck has been railing against progressives so I'll guess the latter.
The definition of progressive is really simple, it just isn't anything that you think: progressives believe that society can be improved for all through organized action, including government policy.
Liberals are people who value personal liberty, the rights and well being of the individual person.
Conservatives are people who place importance on laws, tradition and hard learned lessons.
The kind of person your describing might be properly called a Statist, or even Authoritarian.
So the Iraq war for instance, killed tens of thousands of innocent people, so it's not liberal, violated national and international law, had not prospect of completing it's objectives, and was a stupid move, so it's not conservative, and it's not progressive because it destroyed a whole chunk of society, but it's surely statist.
Gun control ain't liberal, it's not conservative, but it is statist and progressive (if it really improves society).
Social action to end segregation was liberal, wasn't conservative, was anti-statist, but was still progressive.