Dan T

an exerpt from Darwin's auto-biography regarding his religious views. Ill leave you to draw your own conclusions.

As for my personal beliefs I do believe that evolution is plausable, and the Earth is several billion years old. I do not subscribe to the creation story of any abrahamic faith, nor do I attend an abrahamic church. As a non-denominational pagan inspired practioner I do not question the existance of god, as a matter of fact I am a polytheist which you can immagine puts me at great odds with the majority of people on Earth that only believe in 1. I was simply stating in my previous post that science and religion were created for different reasons and are best suited to solve different, non-overlapping, problems of man. This endless battle between them to eliminate the other is rediculous in my view as I believe we as humans have equal need of both. I think the constant back-and-forth reduces the credibility of both sides and makes me doubt any person who is trying to sell me on either a scientific theory, or religious dogma. The word theory, as opposed to law, is attached to evolution for a reason. It is not as concrete as say Newton's laws of motion. This does not mean I don't believe that evolution of species has happened over the millenia but I do distrust any institution or person who seeks to sway followers of any religion away from their church or belief in their god just as I would a preacher who tries to convince me that tries to convince people that the earth only dates back to 4 or 5 thousand bc and that species are fixed and unchanging.

http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/cd_relig.htm

So.... are you saying this is bad?? That we need to further polarize the political parties??

That we need to purge the centrist view?

i think the centrists need to self-purge from both parties and form their own party which i would suspect eclipse both parties of extremists on both ends. form 2 new parties, 3 more hell the more the merrier. the more parties the less likely our country would be controlled by any flavor of extremist. hopefully it would have the ultimate effect of having a government that bare functions outside of providing essential services which is what our founders wanted to begin with. i think it was james madison, and I could be wrong so please correct me, that he cannot find anything in the constitution that gives congress the power to spend money in the name of benevelance. the more dead locked congress is the better it is for us.

luxtxn,

You're right. More power to the KKK for killing of the Republicans.

im going to guess that i already know the answer to this and that it was stated in my previous post already but i have to ask why you hate repubs so much.

but to suggest that the whole institution has been corrupted I cant buy. Its more about finding the truth than trying to discredit some religion.

correct on both counts but junk science has to be denounced as junk and quack scientists have a history of defending fellow quacks. darwin himself carried the agenda of destroying religion. this doesnt nullify 100% of what he worked on but its enough to make you suspicious. im open to ideas such as these and I know that the church is just as hell bent on stifling science which is why the 2 institutions need to stay out of the other's domains. theyd both have more credibility in my book if they did so. btw I am no bible thumper so dont go there with me.

do not miss understand I have not dismissed the claim being made in the OP but I am skepitical.

I doubt any of you took any Organic Chemistry, Biology, Cell Theory, etc...in college.

ive taken bio chem physics and calc

Put me down as a sceptic.

me too but i suspect for a different reason. i am a supporter of science, but only real science. the institutions of science have been corrupted by those whose primary intent is to bring down religion. therefore its too difficult to tell what bs is being thrown out merely to support this agenda and what is real science any more. i am also a supporter of religion, though not a particular one. Religion and science are suited to address very different issues and i for one wish they would stop trying to eradicate the other. we have equal need of both but only in their pure state untainted by those who seek elimination of the other. ie global warming freaks vs global terror freaks.

You better check your facts that Congress doesn't listen to the people since Congress listened to me.

funny i had you pegged for a single payor guy. i stand corrected

Better check your facts as the KKK was very deep in the Democratic party and are still there.

robert byrd anyone? dixie crats? blacks are 3/5ths of a white?

And again I am slapped with a stark reason why this right vs left eye gouging really annoys me. there are a much broader spectrum of political views than just racist unrestricted free trade christian war waging bible thumper on one end and aethesit communist union member pacifist on the other. and they did this to our guy so its fare game for us to do this to their guy. all this gets us is one extreme agenda after another crammed down our throats and most people are lost to vote against incumbants on that basis alone instead of actually getting to vote for someone they agree with. I honestly cant say if im on the right or the left because the most public people from both sides are the extreme fringe, and it crates an environment where people avoid conversation because they assume anyone passionate enough to speak out is one of these 2 flavors of nut-job loony. For instance I am a nature worshipping pagan who believes in american exceptionalism, having the strongest millitary on the face of the planet, having the highest gdp on the planet, and creating an environment where people all have a chance, regardless of color, to put their god given talents to work and acheive their best possible outcome whether it be billionaire mogul or middle income family person. And if you have no ambition to provide for your own survival you should rightly wither away and die with no safety net. Should we provide a leg up for people with ambition but restricted means? sure on some level yeah, but its a fine line between giving a leg up and creating a ward of the state in perpatuity. Government should be as small and unintrusive into peoples lives as possible which means no lectures about sexual prefrence, abortion or church attendance, but it also means no guilt for having the good fortune of being gifted by god to be a top acheiver either. my pagan bretheren all think im nuts whenever i speak in favor of any gop candidate because of images of a rascist aristocracy that seeks to enslave and exploit as many working class people as possible, and any republican I speak to think Im crazy when I tell them I talk to my gods on my own terms in my back yard with candles and incense instead of attending some abrahamic church edifice. Mention pagan to some people and they get visions of mass orgies in the woods and consuming human flesh of a virgin sacrifice. All of this that I get from both ends of the people I associate with in various circles is complete lunacy, and its reinforced by the news media who are simply out for ratings putting up the most extreme people in the public eye and they do everyone an injustice. I do think that every living person needs to formulate a political/religious idealology that they would pick up a gun and fight until death to defend, but this is quite different than picking up a gun with the intent to force it on anyone particularly in a foreign country. The thing is that if political parties were abandoned completely that the real ideas the average people hold would probably find a lot more common ground of agreement instead of what is happening now when people assume anyone the supported bush on any issue is nothin but a klansman, and all people who support obama are nothin but communists union members. both statements are equally false and have no place in a civilized debate. attacking the individual candidates is different though because when youre dealing with a single person you can rightly attack or defend a specific policy that he is on record with, but you have to be careful with attacking stereotypes that individual people do not exhibit. All sides lie, all sides exagerate, all sides spin the truth to support their agenda. It is more important to know where you stand than demand that a news agency report the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth because that just isnt likely to happen.

Yes I am. That's the business they're in.

news flash, most people are born dumb, they dont need any help from fox news or ed shultz

As a Left leaning person, IMO, President Obama moving forward needs to continue showing a willingness to listen to all sides of the issues. I think he's done that on many issues (offshore drilling most recently), but when it came to health care, he stood firm on his convictions on key issues as he promised in his campaign.

i think bho is very good at fooling people into thinking he is listening to all sides, but at the end of the day he is nothing more than a pretty faced, articulate, brainwashed disguised as educated puppet for the brothers emmanuel, rev right, and mr weather underground. on his own though i think he hates this country, hates our constitution and has no solidly held convictions of his own creation. the appearance that he cares one iota for bipartisan input is pure fantasy.

i think all of these discussions illustrate why political parties serve little real purpose and why the terms liberal and conservative are a hoax. Id much rather be a red vs green vs purple vs blue vs orange than simply red vs blue. i have a huge problem picking the gop as a home because on some things I am quite red, on others i am deep blue and on still other issues I think both extreme ends belong in the loony bin. as it relates to reporting though I view everyone as a propagandist of sorts the only difference is how much and to what side. i am suspicious of any "news source" when their survivor ship depends on how many people are watching because if the viewer/listener base ever drops presentation will always always always trump reporting facts. If I am aware of someones motivations, and on fox news I am very clear of their motivations before I hear a single word(same is true of the radio guys from limbaugh to dobbs to shultz), and most of the time(excluding religion) I am on their side. This does not mean I think they are always giving me true facts or that they are being honest with me the viewer but it does mean I agree with the pre existing outlook they bring to the table. for people who cannot distinguish between spin and fact I say let them rot and stop poluting the human genome with their waste.

fair and balanced? we report, you decide? It's not just Bill's tagline, it's the entire organization misrepresenting who and what they are. And there are a load of dumbfcuks out there buying it. It's hard to believe that's the case.

i guess if you omit the dumbf and use something less pejoritive here it takes on a different meaning. Also it sounds like youre accusing foxnews of perpetrating this dumbing down of people. No more so the walter kronkite was. it wasnt straight news back then either. hell yellow jounalism predates america if we're really being honest here. i never considered the leprechaun a news reporter (neither are any of talk radio from limbaugh to shultz) the way i did wolf blitzer or ammanpour when cnn was the only game in town and theyre no straight shooters by any stretch. and as long as we're talking bias you maddau has to be near the top of the list. i expect nearly all news sources, even the bbc, to be slanted one way or the other. thats why i think its more important to decide on whats important to you and have your self-defined values be solid before you attempt to process the validity of any information you consume.

fair and balanced? we report, you decide? It's not just Bill's tagline, it's the entire organization misrepresenting who and what they are. And there are a load of dumbfcuks out there buying it. It's hard to believe that's the case.

and you feel sorry for anyone who expects unspun pure reporting of facts from anyone who makes their living off ratings and ratings only? damn thats pretty naive of you

You obviously know more of these "burka wearing" people than I do.

The closest I have come is seeing them at wal-mart so I will refrain from speaking as if I actually "know" that all these people are actually slaves and hate their religious garb.

Sure I have heard the template... that these people are abused and in fact victims but it would be more interesting (and perhaps useful) if those who "know the culture" would share about them.

So please if you personally know the culture well enough to comment.....tell us how much of it is willing compliance to a religious command/custom and how much is insecure husbands hiding their wife from the world )with no concern for religion).

id submit that unless you fled this culture yourself as one of the oppressed i think its impossible to really know the truth, however, I dont think the answer to this is really relevant. what is relevant is willingness to assimilate or a lack thereof. if the women, after being given a choice choose to go back than let them, to me thats not a reason not to fight on their behalf whether they openly ask for help or not

No spin zone, anyone?

well that tagline i admit is misleading, but theres no way in hell you could watch 5 minutes of the leprechaun and not know what party his rooting for

That's not how I read your earlier statement: "at least fox news wears their political slant on their sleves at all times."

They don't. They misrepresent themselves a) as a news network b) as journalists and c) as unbiased. They're none of these.

the station might, the commentators themselves? im not so sure. to be honest i am only interested in their oppinions most of the time, not the actualy news. the internet has a much wider breadth and depth when it comes to real news and i dont think any reasonable person is under any dillusion.

bump

Guess no one realized that it is OK for the Socialists to do it but not others.

this seems to be a common line used by both conservatives and libs in the public eye against each other. i dont think either side has domain on this particular double standard.

Really? Is there another FOX station that actually does what you claim? This is how they like to present themselves:

Problem is that they're neither fair, nor balanced nor do they exercise journalism of any kind. They were just caught again pushing an old spoof as an actual news story. They're a propaganda tool of the right fringe misrepresenting themselves as an unbiased news network. Goebbels would be proud.

i didnt defend them as a legit news agency. Honestly I dont think such a thing exists in America any more. Anyone with reasonable intelligence who watches a large amount of fox news and not just clipits knows that they are republican propaganda first and foremost. I would sooner feed sheep in peoples clothing to the wolf rather than bash the self-appointed shepheards. the fact we're really dealing with hear is that a vast majority of average tv news(whether 24hr cable or 30 min broadcast) watchers are too damn dumb to tell the difference between actual news and propaganda. i for one start with my own self-inflicted idealology and filter all "news" i see through that lense. when i watch fox i know before they open their mouth that they are stumping for republicans, and i refer you to my thread titled labels for a further explaination of how i feel about this.

Did you read scandal's response?

actually i did and all i really have to say in response is that i think the problems being outlined there are more a function of them being israeli than having a bad system overall. not having a constitution I am sure contributes to a lot of their difficulties as well, and im not saying id want a carbon copy of their system either i just like the aspects of having many parties instead of 2, and having fluid rather than rigid membership to them.

there you go

i think it would be much more useful to study the tea party movement by their own propaganda instead of through the filter of their opponents in the leftist state run media. anything you read in the nyt wash post et all or watch on abc, nbc, cbs is always going to provide more entertainment than actual facts. its a disgrace that they call themselves a news agency. at least fox news wears their political slant on their sleves at all times.

Divided Allegiance is not caused by dual citizenship. Its caused by religion...

personally i dont see how or why citizenship of a particular nation implies or requires aligiance. willfully joining the armed forces of that country is a different issue. ireland has ended birthright citizenship as of 2004 and I applaud them for it. I think it would be a very intelligent thing for the US to emulate. marriage based immigration I am obviously in favor of and i do not see a connection between the 2 at all. if at any point the economy in ireland creates a better environment for me to earn a living than what exists in the US me and my irish wife will gladly move there at the drop of a hat provided our reentry and resumption of work in the US would not be compromised.

i rarely suggest that America emulate european political actions, but in this case i believe we should do so.

big agreement here with both sentiments

just in the interest of full disclosure i am uninsured because I am a self employed IT consultant and cannot afford insurence until business picks up, but i suspect I could be in this limbo for a long time based on the tax-burdens caused by this bill putting a freeze on hiring and new projects at businesses that would otherwise hire me.