Back to your points- I believe in subsidiarity and an absolute right to private property. NEITHER the capitalists nor the socialists believe in that; I join Pope Leo XIII in saying that there is no difference between a communist state and a capitalist oligarchy.
So therefore, I think in English being a new language to you- and not knowing the french in my sig line in which I explain myself- you are classifying me as being a part of the New Left, when in reality I'm part of the Christian Center.
I have read most of those previously. My answer is that my nick comes from my youth, when I was attracted by the left *before* I found out that the con artists of the left had taken over the economy *of the entire world*- and that the Atheist Austrian Libertarians and the Atheist Soviet Communists *were the same people*.
And capitalism in the United States under the right to choose has lead to a genocide of 56 million.
But I am about to change my sig line. My Marxist tendencies are MUCH closer to Abp. Reinhard Marx than to the atheist/materialist Karl Marx (I think they are related, but Reinhard is still alive- Archbishop of Munich in Westphalia).
"might I ask, which case are you referring to? I'm truly wondering about what case you are talking about because I've never heard of one."
I was thinking primarily of the rather non-religious prayer in a school building in New Jersey recently. The one that EVERY student in that school had ignored for so long that the plaque was almost unreadable due to the dust- but one little atheist was offended and so it had to be removed.
"I'm going to assume you are not talking about a case of a display in a government building like a court, because the Supreme court has already spoken in quite definitive terms about this."
Yes, they have. And I consider the Supreme Court to be in violation of the Constitution on this and a few other subjects, to the point that I consider the constitution to be null and void, breach of contract.
"your point seems self perpetuating. If a well learned scientist who had done the work said the same thing, you can simply dismiss it without consideration simply because you "don't know him". But that isn't logic or a discussion, it's more akin to putting your fingers in your ears to dismiss anything you don't want to take the time to consider, isn't it?"
Yes, it is. But you've missed the point. The point is that the rules of logic are not applied equally. I have about as much reason to trust a scientist when he steps outside of his field of specialty into philosophy as you do to trust Moses when he says you shouldn't take the name of the Lord Your God in vain.
"Can I ask you why do you dismiss all things being said whether informed or not with the same response?"
Because that's the response I always get from atheists- and I suddenly realized that it applies not just to religion, but to science, and in fact, every philosophy mankind has ever come up with.
"What does the fact that someone not you or I did the research?"
It's a matter of trust. If you trust nobody- then it matters because objective evidence simply can't exist. At all. If somebody else did the research and you don't know them, then there is no reason to even suspect that they are telling the truth. Credentials don't matter because the people who hand out credentials are paid to hand out credentials. Other people's respect doesn't matter for the same reason.
"Obviously, there is the possibility that anything we can imagine (and even what we can't imagine) is true."
And there is the EQUAL probability that everything we can sense, and even what we can't sense, is false. Therein lies the problem of the appeal to authority- even the authority of our own senses.
" It's pretty irrelevant though to the question of informed decision making. "
Informed decision making is an illusion for a species that can't predict either past or future with 100% accuracy. Without the concepts of God and Soul, even free will is just an illusion- you're really just a bunch of chemical reactions and everything you have done or ever will do is predetermined at a level you can't even begin to fathom because it's beyond the limits of what our species can measure.
Oddly enough, that joke is actually relevant. There are really two different types of hearing aids: 1. Volume-based hearing aids which are so cheap now that they're sold for $10 on chinese websites, and you could build one yourself for less than $3 worth of parts. 2. Frequency adjust hearing aids- these are actually tiny computers that slightly shift the frequency of the waveform for people who have frequency-specific hearing disorders. The cost for them is about $500 base, plus a couple of weeks of software engineering to tune them to the INDIVIDUAL User. It is the second type that the original author's mother needs, and yes, in a way it is a supply and demand problem as *each unit* (even in a pair) has to be tuned to the disability of the individual ear.
"You are a liar. I have been a member of many such organizations, and I have yet to EVER meet ONE atheist who thinks the First Amendment prohibits religious expression in public."
Then why does the Freedom From Religion Foundation keep insisting in court that the First Amendment prohibits religious expression in public? You do realize they're actually on public court record saying so, and have also taken out New York Times Advertisements to that fact?
2nd reply on religion in general. Most people understand that Santa really exists, it takes a materialist idiot to think that there's only one form of existance.
Then you should have noted that I already have a child. In addition to that, may I suggest your bigotry against the obsese is no different than my bigotry against idiots?
No it isn't- the way one guy I worked with put it is "I subscribe to the separation of Church and Leo." I've also met plenty of Freedom From Religion foundation people. Ex Catholics in the Freedom From Religion Foundation is now the second largest religious sect in the United States today.
My problem seems to be meeting atheists who do not seem to think that the First Amendment guarantees them a life never running into any believer for any reason.
True, heterosexuality is no guarantee that somebody will procreate, but until you can make a man pregnant by another man, homosexuality pretty much IS a guarantee that he won't.
Artificial insemination requires a woman to be involved, and gay men are afraid of women or else they would not be gay.
"So I can then I assume from your comment that you will hold fast to your beliefs that only the intelligent should survive and will yourself refuse to breed?"
I actually consider this realization of fact, not belief, to be proof that I should breed.
It is incredibly hard to breed when you don't know the difference between a plug and a socket.
Slashdot Mirror
Back to your points- I believe in subsidiarity and an absolute right to private property. NEITHER the capitalists nor the socialists believe in that; I join Pope Leo XIII in saying that there is no difference between a communist state and a capitalist oligarchy.
So therefore, I think in English being a new language to you- and not knowing the french in my sig line in which I explain myself- you are classifying me as being a part of the New Left, when in reality I'm part of the Christian Center.
I have read most of those previously. My answer is that my nick comes from my youth, when I was attracted by the left *before* I found out that the con artists of the left had taken over the economy *of the entire world*- and that the Atheist Austrian Libertarians and the Atheist Soviet Communists *were the same people*.
Crony Capitalism is also a form of Marxism- it was Karl Marx who wrote Das Kapital, on which the collectivism of the stock exchanges is based.
There is no "right", only the New Left in power- at all.
Thus Tendance Reinhard.
And capitalism in the United States under the right to choose has lead to a genocide of 56 million.
But I am about to change my sig line. My Marxist tendencies are MUCH closer to Abp. Reinhard Marx than to the atheist/materialist Karl Marx (I think they are related, but Reinhard is still alive- Archbishop of Munich in Westphalia).
Where my favorite Lenten Lunch (if a bit non kosher) for Fridays is canned clams on Matzo crackers.
"might I ask, which case are you referring to? I'm truly wondering about what case you are talking about because I've never heard of one."
I was thinking primarily of the rather non-religious prayer in a school building in New Jersey recently. The one that EVERY student in that school had ignored for so long that the plaque was almost unreadable due to the dust- but one little atheist was offended and so it had to be removed.
"I'm going to assume you are not talking about a case of a display in a government building like a court, because the Supreme court has already spoken in quite definitive terms about this."
Yes, they have. And I consider the Supreme Court to be in violation of the Constitution on this and a few other subjects, to the point that I consider the constitution to be null and void, breach of contract.
"your point seems self perpetuating. If a well learned scientist who had done the work said the same thing, you can simply dismiss it without consideration simply because you "don't know him". But that isn't logic or a discussion, it's more akin to putting your fingers in your ears to dismiss anything you don't want to take the time to consider, isn't it?"
Yes, it is. But you've missed the point. The point is that the rules of logic are not applied equally. I have about as much reason to trust a scientist when he steps outside of his field of specialty into philosophy as you do to trust Moses when he says you shouldn't take the name of the Lord Your God in vain.
"Can I ask you why do you dismiss all things being said whether informed or not with the same response?"
Because that's the response I always get from atheists- and I suddenly realized that it applies not just to religion, but to science, and in fact, every philosophy mankind has ever come up with.
"What does the fact that someone not you or I did the research?"
It's a matter of trust. If you trust nobody- then it matters because objective evidence simply can't exist. At all. If somebody else did the research and you don't know them, then there is no reason to even suspect that they are telling the truth. Credentials don't matter because the people who hand out credentials are paid to hand out credentials. Other people's respect doesn't matter for the same reason.
"Obviously, there is the possibility that anything we can imagine (and even what we can't imagine) is true."
And there is the EQUAL probability that everything we can sense, and even what we can't sense, is false. Therein lies the problem of the appeal to authority- even the authority of our own senses.
" It's pretty irrelevant though to the question of informed decision making. "
Informed decision making is an illusion for a species that can't predict either past or future with 100% accuracy. Without the concepts of God and Soul, even free will is just an illusion- you're really just a bunch of chemical reactions and everything you have done or ever will do is predetermined at a level you can't even begin to fathom because it's beyond the limits of what our species can measure.
"Nobody is saying they don't have that right as long as it ends at the city limits"
Actually, I've never seen a tax libertarians have liked. Jurisdiction doesn't matter.
Must not be Catholic or Jewish- basic Matzo or Communion wafers is two ingredients, flour and water. Period.
Oddly enough, that joke is actually relevant. There are really two different types of hearing aids:
1. Volume-based hearing aids which are so cheap now that they're sold for $10 on chinese websites, and you could build one yourself for less than $3 worth of parts.
2. Frequency adjust hearing aids- these are actually tiny computers that slightly shift the frequency of the waveform for people who have frequency-specific hearing disorders. The cost for them is about $500 base, plus a couple of weeks of software engineering to tune them to the INDIVIDUAL User. It is the second type that the original author's mother needs, and yes, in a way it is a supply and demand problem as *each unit* (even in a pair) has to be tuned to the disability of the individual ear.
"You are a liar. I have been a member of many such organizations, and I have yet to EVER meet ONE atheist who thinks the First Amendment prohibits religious expression in public."
Then why does the Freedom From Religion Foundation keep insisting in court that the First Amendment prohibits religious expression in public? You do realize they're actually on public court record saying so, and have also taken out New York Times Advertisements to that fact?
I'm sorry, but the lie is yours.
"When your only rebuttal to a well thought out reply "
There isn't any thought behind your reply, just more prejudiced, heterophobic garbage.
And lies are like murder- it's murdering the truth.
That's because you don't have any clue what a penis is actually used for.
2nd reply on religion in general. Most people understand that Santa really exists, it takes a materialist idiot to think that there's only one form of existance.
Then you'd be a stupid idiot who doesn't understand how things work.
Then you should have noted that I already have a child. In addition to that, may I suggest your bigotry against the obsese is no different than my bigotry against idiots?
"Did you read anything at all after my first sentence?"
When your first sentence is a vicious, premeditated lie, there's no need to read anything else.
No it isn't- the way one guy I worked with put it is "I subscribe to the separation of Church and Leo." I've also met plenty of Freedom From Religion foundation people. Ex Catholics in the Freedom From Religion Foundation is now the second largest religious sect in the United States today.
My problem seems to be meeting atheists who do not seem to think that the First Amendment guarantees them a life never running into any believer for any reason.
NeuroTypicals are neither reasonable nor fair. That's why I don't.
True, heterosexuality is no guarantee that somebody will procreate, but until you can make a man pregnant by another man, homosexuality pretty much IS a guarantee that he won't.
Artificial insemination requires a woman to be involved, and gay men are afraid of women or else they would not be gay.
It isn't exaggeration. People have *actually filed lawsuits* to take prayers off of walls.
I cope by voting third party *most of the time*. And I'm damn glad I actually read your question.
It's not a joke- as anybody who actually knows the difference between compatible plug and a compatible socket should know.
It's only braindead to people who put freedom above duty.
"So I can then I assume from your comment that you will hold fast to your beliefs that only the intelligent should survive and will yourself refuse to breed?"
I actually consider this realization of fact, not belief, to be proof that I should breed.
It is incredibly hard to breed when you don't know the difference between a plug and a socket.