-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
God created the universe?
- Thread starter dahermit
- Start date
Werbung:
No, the train is still chugging along.
No, he sh*** on the ill advised and unnecessary wa.. excuse me, I mean "police action" in Vietnam that should never have happened.
How are you so sure what they are saying, then?
Aha! A second agreement. You are coming around!
Gipper
Well-Known Member
Kerry did sh*t on America. I thought you were there. No?
He claimed US soldiers committed atrocities against the Vietnamese people. He lied like he does all the time only this time he committed treason.
And, yes I do listen to the lib media so I can understand how libs think and what they believe. How does one NOT hear the lib media? They are everywhere.
Atrocities are a part of warfare. Kerry was there, so has first hand knowledge, and nothing to gain by lying. Sure, politicians lie, but usually not when the truth would serve them better.
I thought you said you didn't listen to the "lib media"? I'm still not convinced that you really know what a "lib" is. You did give us a definition, but you seem to keep expanding on that definition.
Did you read my political philosophy when I posted it for you?
Gipper
Well-Known Member
You obviously were not paying attention back then or now. Kerry had much to gain by claiming American troops were pillaging and raping Vietnam. But no doubt you think the Swift Boat Vets were lying. Right?
Kerry became a media superstar by LYING. And, that lead to a fortune in politics and from marrying wealthy women. And you think he had nothing to gain by lying about his experience in Vietnam. I have a bridge for sale...just send cash.
Either you are delusional or on the evil weed again.
You probably think scientists have nothing to gain by lying about AGW.
So, your idea is that he was able to marry money because of lying about what happened in Vietnam? That's an interesting theory, I have to admit. Do you have any facts to back it up?
My theory is that the Swift Boaters were lying. Some of them didn't even serve with Kerry, for one thing. They had a motive to lie, for another. Kerry's motive, it seems to me, would have been to keep his mouth shut about what he saw in Vietnam and to have run as a war hero. He would have had a much better chance of winning.
Gipper
Well-Known Member
Do you think for one iota that Kerry would have had an opportunity to marry those two wealthy women were he not a powerful senator??? Oh please THC, work with me here man. Do you know anything about this lying man?
He lied about Vietnam to get his name in lights and start his political career at a time when the war was most unpopular. Just the opposite of what you think (as usual). And here I thought you were around then... Vietnam, just so you know, was a very unpopular war when John Lying Kerry started lying. So, the easy thing to do was sh*t on the troops if you wanted notoriety. Yes? Get it yet? Light bulb on yet...guessing not...
Most of the Swift Boat Vets WHERE THERE. Your weren't there. So, you are wrong...just using your logic.
I must be very SPECIFIC here so that you understand.
The Vets, while not with Kerry very f-ing waking minute (which apparently you think they must be to state their opinion) when he was in country, knew for a FACT that he lied after returning home. And why????? Because they were there and witnessed nothing of what John Fing Kerry claimed.
Do you get it yet? They knew he lied about the actions of American servicemen and so, they did not want a liar to win the presidency.
Using your silly theory, what did the Vets have to gain by lying about Kerry? Nothing right? Yet, Kerry had much to gain. Right? So, he is without doubt a liar.
You see how simple it is when you know the facts??? But, I am certain my efforts to inform you have failed once again.
That's an interesting theory, I have to admit. Yes, the war against Vietnam was extremely unpopular, particularly among those young enough to be forced to go and fight it.
So, then, you think that Kerry, who volunteered for duty in Vietnam, lied about the horrors of war in order to get himself elected to the Senate so that he could marry money.
What evidence do you have that your theory is correct?
Gipper
Well-Known Member
We have been round and round on this. I'm tired of you twisting my words.
Kerry is a fraud. Always has been and always will be.
It is interesting how you twist my words though. You claim I claimed...John Fing Kerry "...lied about the horrors of war..." No I claimed he lied about the actions of American servicemen. He claimed they committed all kinds of horrible atrocities none of which were ever verified.
Just read the Swift Boat Vets account and you will get the truth. They were there and they have no reason to lie. Unlike John Fing Kerry who lied all the way to the Senate and riches beyond comprehension.
pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
100 bucks if he can ever back that up lol...I think my money will be safe lol
Ok, so it was about the actions of his fellow soldiers, which are only a part of the horrors of war.
Now that we have that straightened out, do you have any evidence to back up your opinion?
pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
Gipper
Well-Known Member
Again...and again...and again....READ the Swift Boat Vets commentary....its been out there just as long as John Fing Kerry has been lying...just don't tell your lib friends you finally found the truth.
Unless you would rather not be a lib with lib friends, of course.
That's your answer? Is Pockets right, then, and you have no evidence?
Surely, you aren't expecting me to take political advertising seriously!
Werbung:
orogenicman
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2010
- Messages
- 734
I have posted this from time to time onvarious forums. Considering some of the current issue of this thread, I thought it would be appropriate to do so now.
-OGM
__________________
"In the great classic, near eastern religions, man's life on earth is conceived as pain and suffering, and an inheritance of man's fall from grace (or Paradise Lost). According to these traditions, after man's expulsion from paradise, because of his disobedience to his "God", man alone could not recover his erstwhile innocence, even by striving to become a superhuman of humility, submission, and kindness, etc., but only by an intercession of a god, or God-man sacrifice, could man ever hope to regain paradise, in another world, a spirit world. This "New Jerusalem" is a concept which it contrary to the universal order of things which man's science has inductively gleaned from the study of nature, and as such, (in these classic near eastern religions) man's concept of morality is a product of his vision of the world and his hope to regain lost innocence.
Man's concept of morality has most recently been connected with what he conceived to be good (moral) and to be bad (immoral). Man's immorality has been equated with "sin" in his a priori understanding: this idea of morality has changed tremendously during his short tenure on earth. But contrarily, what is moral in Nature? And has this natural morality altered through time? "Truth" and "falsehood" are important ingredients in man's consideration of morality, but truth may be defined, in the sense of subjective truth with its definitions and criteria, differing from person to person, institution to institution, place to place, and time to time.
Man is essentially incapable of committing "sin" beyond the magnitude of the individual and collective sins, for the universe is independent of mankind's hopes, fears, aspirations, and indeed, complete understanding, past, present, and future. We may, however, admit a possible transient misdemeanor in that man's efforts have had some deleterious effects on the earth, and even possibly on parts of the solar system, but certainly this can have little or no effect on the galaxy or the universe at large. Further, the earth and sister planets and their satellites are almost insignificant parts of our almost insignificant star system in an almost insignificant galaxy, and in an almost infinitesimal speck in our universe (be it cosmos or chaos matters not).
Man's paradigm of morality is religion based on axiomatic reasoning, not subject to objective proof, personified as God, omnipotent throughout time and space. According to this paradigm, Man need not strive to obtain knowledge from any source other than religion for all is given by God; submission to his God will make all known which man needs in his life, and the rest on a "need to know basis" will be revealed to him in the after world. This is a lazy system for man need not strive to find truth, but it is handed down from above: (In this belief system) All things are known to God and all man needs to do is apply and follow these laws which are made known by individual revelation from God to man.
Man's concept, and Nature's concept of reality and harmony differ in the highest order. Man has accused his a priori deities of duplicity, for men have always asked the question, "Why should good men suffer",and very often the misery of good men is far greater than that of those who do not conform to the highest criteria for goodness as defined by man's totemic customs and religions. This question has been asked and answers have been attempted ever since man realized his "selfness" and became an introspective creature.
In the last analysis of the morality of Nature, we see no evidence of mercy in the cosmos; its indifference extends from the lowest forms of life to that of man. The cries of humanity, whether the suffering is imposed by man upon himself or upon other men, or by natural laws operating independently of man, echo down the corridors of time and space and evoke no response from indifferent Nature.
These anguished cries and pitiful prayers for help are merely cosmic background "noise" to which Nature must (not out of evil intent, spite, revenge, or punishment, but by necessity) turn a "deaf ear"; for were it not so, Nature itself would be destroyed by these same laws which Nature had ordained "in the beginning" (if there was one) and must continue to operate in perpetuity (if time and the universe are truly eternal), or there would be and ending to the cosmic laws: a true "twilight of the gods", and of cosmic harmony, Chaos never returning to Cosmos."
- James E. Conkin, Professor Emeritus, University of Louisville, 2002
_____________________________________
And I always interject a bit here for clarification. Religious people often tell me if one doesn't believe in God then one has no purpose in life, or that there can be no meaningful purpose in life. My response is that having a meaningful purpose in life is not dependent on a belief in the supernatural. Albert Einstein once said:
“A human being is part of a whole, called by us the Universe, a part limited in time space, and human consciousness. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task (purpose) must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. While no one can achieve this completely, the striving for such achievement is a part of the liberation and a foundation for inner security.”
So we are a tiny, almost microscopic part of the universe, this universe (I took this image on 09/05/2010):
There are at least 13 galaxies in this image, which represents a portion of our sky that is smaller than a first quarter moon. All of which contain billions of star systems and billions of solar systems. If I can resolver 13 galaxies on a digital sensor in a matter of 12 minutes, imagine how many others are out there that didn't rise above the signal to noise ratio of the sensor.
As Carl Sagan once said, "if it's just us, it seems like an awful waste of space". And if it isn't just us, imagine all the other civilizations out there with similar questions about themselves, about life, and the universe. Are they coming to the same axiomatic conclusions we often come to, or have they evolved a different set of reasoning skills altogether? If we are to ever to advance our knowledge of the universe, of which we are a part, and find the answers to these and many other questions, I think we need to evolve a different set of reasoning skills as well. Because "God did it" simply doesn't explain anything.
-OGM
__________________
"In the great classic, near eastern religions, man's life on earth is conceived as pain and suffering, and an inheritance of man's fall from grace (or Paradise Lost). According to these traditions, after man's expulsion from paradise, because of his disobedience to his "God", man alone could not recover his erstwhile innocence, even by striving to become a superhuman of humility, submission, and kindness, etc., but only by an intercession of a god, or God-man sacrifice, could man ever hope to regain paradise, in another world, a spirit world. This "New Jerusalem" is a concept which it contrary to the universal order of things which man's science has inductively gleaned from the study of nature, and as such, (in these classic near eastern religions) man's concept of morality is a product of his vision of the world and his hope to regain lost innocence.
Man's concept of morality has most recently been connected with what he conceived to be good (moral) and to be bad (immoral). Man's immorality has been equated with "sin" in his a priori understanding: this idea of morality has changed tremendously during his short tenure on earth. But contrarily, what is moral in Nature? And has this natural morality altered through time? "Truth" and "falsehood" are important ingredients in man's consideration of morality, but truth may be defined, in the sense of subjective truth with its definitions and criteria, differing from person to person, institution to institution, place to place, and time to time.
Man is essentially incapable of committing "sin" beyond the magnitude of the individual and collective sins, for the universe is independent of mankind's hopes, fears, aspirations, and indeed, complete understanding, past, present, and future. We may, however, admit a possible transient misdemeanor in that man's efforts have had some deleterious effects on the earth, and even possibly on parts of the solar system, but certainly this can have little or no effect on the galaxy or the universe at large. Further, the earth and sister planets and their satellites are almost insignificant parts of our almost insignificant star system in an almost insignificant galaxy, and in an almost infinitesimal speck in our universe (be it cosmos or chaos matters not).
Man's paradigm of morality is religion based on axiomatic reasoning, not subject to objective proof, personified as God, omnipotent throughout time and space. According to this paradigm, Man need not strive to obtain knowledge from any source other than religion for all is given by God; submission to his God will make all known which man needs in his life, and the rest on a "need to know basis" will be revealed to him in the after world. This is a lazy system for man need not strive to find truth, but it is handed down from above: (In this belief system) All things are known to God and all man needs to do is apply and follow these laws which are made known by individual revelation from God to man.
Man's concept, and Nature's concept of reality and harmony differ in the highest order. Man has accused his a priori deities of duplicity, for men have always asked the question, "Why should good men suffer",and very often the misery of good men is far greater than that of those who do not conform to the highest criteria for goodness as defined by man's totemic customs and religions. This question has been asked and answers have been attempted ever since man realized his "selfness" and became an introspective creature.
In the last analysis of the morality of Nature, we see no evidence of mercy in the cosmos; its indifference extends from the lowest forms of life to that of man. The cries of humanity, whether the suffering is imposed by man upon himself or upon other men, or by natural laws operating independently of man, echo down the corridors of time and space and evoke no response from indifferent Nature.
These anguished cries and pitiful prayers for help are merely cosmic background "noise" to which Nature must (not out of evil intent, spite, revenge, or punishment, but by necessity) turn a "deaf ear"; for were it not so, Nature itself would be destroyed by these same laws which Nature had ordained "in the beginning" (if there was one) and must continue to operate in perpetuity (if time and the universe are truly eternal), or there would be and ending to the cosmic laws: a true "twilight of the gods", and of cosmic harmony, Chaos never returning to Cosmos."
- James E. Conkin, Professor Emeritus, University of Louisville, 2002
_____________________________________
And I always interject a bit here for clarification. Religious people often tell me if one doesn't believe in God then one has no purpose in life, or that there can be no meaningful purpose in life. My response is that having a meaningful purpose in life is not dependent on a belief in the supernatural. Albert Einstein once said:
“A human being is part of a whole, called by us the Universe, a part limited in time space, and human consciousness. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task (purpose) must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. While no one can achieve this completely, the striving for such achievement is a part of the liberation and a foundation for inner security.”
So we are a tiny, almost microscopic part of the universe, this universe (I took this image on 09/05/2010):
There are at least 13 galaxies in this image, which represents a portion of our sky that is smaller than a first quarter moon. All of which contain billions of star systems and billions of solar systems. If I can resolver 13 galaxies on a digital sensor in a matter of 12 minutes, imagine how many others are out there that didn't rise above the signal to noise ratio of the sensor.
As Carl Sagan once said, "if it's just us, it seems like an awful waste of space". And if it isn't just us, imagine all the other civilizations out there with similar questions about themselves, about life, and the universe. Are they coming to the same axiomatic conclusions we often come to, or have they evolved a different set of reasoning skills altogether? If we are to ever to advance our knowledge of the universe, of which we are a part, and find the answers to these and many other questions, I think we need to evolve a different set of reasoning skills as well. Because "God did it" simply doesn't explain anything.
