Romney's campaign gets "cool" with their new smartphone app

[byco42]

I don't think O' Reilly's a TPOS. Just an ego on TV. A lot of those guys are very high-strung and that's what helps make them good at what they do. I work with them often, and all they need are answers, and for stuff to be ready when it's supposed to be.

As for the tides and such, I believe that God is active in keeping it all moving and changing. The universe is still in progress. As for the religion as scam angle, please. I'd buy the notion that we were all wrong about God, but I don't for a second subscribe to the idea that the "leaders" are purposely perpetrating a lie. No. The obvious question is then where the awareness of said scam begins in the chain of command of each of the major, monotheistic religions. Who knows and who doesn't.

 

[Slick]

I winder if Mitt is asking for more then a year in back tax records when vetting VPs

 

[tinselwolverine]

good point.

I do have to say, I sometimes crack up at these militant, dogmatic aetheist "activists" who actually "practice" aetheism as a religion - what's the point?

If you don't believe in anything - no meaning, no hereafter, no nothing - why waste your time being anti-religion to the point of it being your own religion?!?!

Why not just go out and get laid a lot and have as much fun in the short time of existence that you have?

That's what I do; although I'm not specifically aetheist.

 

[byco42]

I wonder why the atheists expend so much energy trying to prove believers wrong. Maybe misery loves company.

 

[KAWDUP]

I don't think O' Reilly's a TPOS. Just an ego on TV. A lot of those guys are very high-strung and that's what helps make them good at what they do. I work with them often, and all they need are answers, and for stuff to be ready when it's supposed to be.

As for the tides and such, I believe that God is active in keeping it all moving and changing. The universe is still in progress. As for the religion as scam angle, please. I'd buy the notion that we were all wrong about God, but I don't for a second subscribe to the idea that the "leaders" are purposely perpetrating a lie. No. The obvious question is then where the awareness of said scam begins in the chain of command of each of the major, monotheistic religions. Who knows and who doesn't.

I think there are many gradations of what is said to be "known" by various humans in the chain of command of each of those religions. Can't argue that some of the most deeply felt theistic traditions are totally man made, and only loosely tied to God (in the general term) or the ancient texts (Bible, Koran, etc) in some way.

The point is, the majority of history is written by the winners, and that includes religion. So sometimes an analysis of why you believe something is not only relevant but necessary to better your own understanding.

. . . it also helps when arguing with non-believers who treat their non-belief just like a religion. :*)

 

[Michchamp]

there are some atheists that adopt a highly confrontational tone; I myself used to be more so, specifically with family members. I guess it had something to do with realizing I had been living a lie and resenting those that force-fed it to me. But of course, they had no idea where I was coming from... that were still blissful in their ignorance.

"What the heck is champ's deal? Why does he have to be all up in my grill like that? Shit."

these days, I don't really care, except when specifically confronted by a completely idiotic notion, like O'Reilly's thing about the tides, which is completely idiotic.

 

[cheeno]

I wonder why the atheists expend so much energy trying to prove believers wrong. Maybe misery loves company.

Why do doctors in mental institutions expend so much energy trying to restore their patient's sanity?

 

[tinselwolverine]

I wonder why the atheists expend so much energy trying to prove believers wrong. Maybe misery loves company.

Ha, ha...there is no proof of anything; aethiests can no better prove the non-existence of a creator than believers can prove the existence of one.

Those signs on the Jersey turnpike the aetheist was talking about, that are telling people they're going to hell - if they're like the signs of that nature I've seen, then they're not targeting aethiests - according to the signs I've seen, lots of religious people will be joining aethiest right down there in hell - Jews, and Hindus, and Moslems and Druids and Wiccam and Buddhists and practitioners any religion that doesn't accept Jesus are all gonna join him and his fellow aethiests right there in hell - and some practitioners of Christian religions believe that practitioners of other Christian religions (specifically, some Christian religions believe that Mormons and Catholics practice a Satanic form of Christianity) - they're all going to hell too.

So that aethiest will have plenty of company there in hell with lots of religious folk.

So maybe that aethiest can stop feeling so self conscious, and so marginalized and persecuted.

 

[byco42]

there are some atheists that adopt a highly confrontational tone; I myself used to be more so, specifically with family members. I guess it had something to do with realizing I had been living a lie and resenting those that force-fed it to me. But of course, they had no idea where I was coming from... that were still blissful in their ignorance.

"What the heck is champ's deal? Why does he have to be all up in my grill like that? Shit."

these days, I don't really care, except when specifically confronted by a completely idiotic notion, like O'Reilly's thing about the tides, which is completely idiotic.

I'm reasonably certain that someday you will become an ardent believer again.

 

[byco42]

Why do doctors in mental institutions expend so much energy trying to restore their patient's sanity?

Admittedly, I'm a "fool for Christ" just like St. Paul wrote.

 

[tinselwolverine]

there are some atheists that adopt a highly confrontational tone; I myself used to be more so, specifically with family members. I guess it had something to do with realizing I had been living a lie and resenting those that force-fed it to me. But of course, they had no idea where I was coming from... that were still blissful in their ignorance.

"What the heck is champ's deal? Why does he have to be all up in my grill like that? Shit."

these days, I don't really care, except when specifically confronted by a completely idiotic notion, like O'Reilly's thing about the tides, which is completely idiotic.

Me, I was just happy the day I got to quit wasting my time going to church.

 

[cheeno]

Ha, ha...there is no proof of anything; aethiests can no better prove the non-existence of a creator than believers can prove the existence of one.

You can't prove a negative. That's like saying, "because you can't prove to me you are not an alien; therefore in fact you are an alien."

 

[tinselwolverine]

You can't prove a negative. That's like saying, "because you can't prove to me you are not an alien; therefore in fact you are an alien."

Apparently the aethiest in the clip thought a negative could be proven, because he referred to the non-existence of God or a creator as a "fact."

Maybe he's a friend of Chico's.

 

[KAWDUP]

Ha, ha...there is no proof of anything; aethiests can no better prove the non-existence of a creator than believers can prove the existence of one.

Those signs on the Jersey turnpike the aetheist was talking about, that are telling people they're going to hell - if they're like the signs of that nature I've seen, then they're not targeting aethiests - according to the signs I've seen, lots of religious people will be joining aethiest right down there in hell - Jews, and Hindus, and Moslems and Druids and Wiccam and Buddhists and practitioners any religion that doesn't accept Jesus are all gonna join him and his fellow aethiests right there in hell - and some practitioners of Christian religions believe that practitioners of other Christian religions (specifically, some Christian religions believe that Mormons and Catholics practice a Satanic form of Christianity) - they're all going to hell too.

So that aethiest will have plenty of company there in hell with lots of religious folk.

So maybe that aethiest can stop feeling so self conscious, and so marginalized and persecuted.

Your term "in hell" might need to be explained some.

. . . and are you talking about some theist who has told you some perceived truth about who would be "in hell" or "in heaven"? Not sure you are quoting official teaching of any of the Christian religions.

Especially if you are lumping everyone who believes in an afterlife that it is a place you go rather than say maybe a state of being.

While your first statement is dead on, I'm not sure that anyone knows who "is going to" or "already is in" heaven and hell. If you were just using conjecture (that has no basis in fact) to make a point, OK - carry on.

 

[redandguilty]

Your term "in hell" might need to be explained some.

. . . and are you talking about some theist who has told you some perceived truth about who would be "in hell" or "in heaven"? Not sure you are quoting official teaching of any of the Christian religions.

Especially if you are lumping everyone who believes in an afterlife that it is a place you go rather than say maybe a state of being.

While your first statement is dead on, I'm not sure that anyone knows who "is going to" or "already is in" heaven and hell. If you were just using conjecture (that has no basis in fact) to make a point, OK - carry on.

I like the idea that heaven and hell are simply your reaction to enlightenment. Whatever your life experience, religion, education, opportunity...a complete understanding of your role in the world could be either depending on how you reacted to your circumstances.

 

[KAWDUP]

You can't prove a negative. That's like saying, "because you can't prove to me you are not an alien; therefore in fact you are an alien."

True - you hit on the real reason O'Reilly was wrong. While what you say is true, that you can't use that argument to prove the existence of God, it also cannot be used to prove the non-existence of said supreme being.

Suppose I use the better term "order in the universe" rather than "tides"? When thinking about it, it is hard for me to imagine that there is no God, but it certainly doesn't prove his existence either.

 

[redandguilty]

You can't prove a negative. That's like saying, "because you can't prove to me you are not an alien; therefore in fact you are an alien."

He didn't say that. He said you can't prove existence or non-existence. That's different than saying "you can't prove non-existence, therefore existence must be true."

But at least you are in agreement that you can't prove the negative case. He said it, then you said it back at him.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Your term "in hell" might need to be explained some.

. . . and are you talking about some theist who has told you some perceived truth about who would be "in hell" or "in heaven"? Not sure you are quoting official teaching of any of the Christian religions.

Especially if you are lumping everyone who believes in an afterlife that it is a place you go rather than say maybe a state of being.

While your first statement is dead on, I'm not sure that anyone knows who "is going to" or "already is in" heaven and hell. If you were just using conjecture (that has no basis in fact) to make a point, OK - carry on.

"In hell" - You know, with the devil, and fire and the brimstone, and that shit.

Specifically 7th Day Adventists believe the Pope is the Anti-Christ.

I'm not lumping anyone anywhere; the aethiest was talking about a roadsign on the Jersey Turnpike that was telling people, according to the aethiest, they were going to hell.

There are these freakin' Koreans who walk up and down Hollywood Boulevard shouting the same sort of thing, while I'm out there giving away tickets to TV show tapings.

 

[Michchamp]

I like the idea that heaven and hell are simply your reaction to enlightenment. Whatever your life experience, religion, education, opportunity...a complete understanding of your role in the world could be either depending on how you reacted to your circumstances.

you might like that idea, but your church doesn't. and if you tried preaching it 400 years ago, they'd burn you to death at the stake.

knucklehead.

 

[tinselwolverine]

He didn't say that. He said you can't prove existence or non-existence. That's different than saying "you can't prove non-existence, therefore existence must be true."

But at least you are in agreement that you can't prove the negative case. He said it, then you said it back at him.

Thanks, I didn't feel like spending the energy 'splainin' it.

Plus I still hate to pass up any opportunity on these boards to make fun of Chico.