If you could change the world?

[ahellers]

So for some reason Ive been watching alot of shows on tv lately about columdine, 911 and all the other events in history that have changed the world.

so If you could go back in time to one event within your life time where you could make a differnce where would you go?

I would go to Columdine highschool and take care of those kids before they killed so many people.
t

[tropical_fishy]

I'd prevent the genocide in Rwanda, or, obviously, 9/11. Maybe I'd do nothing, and let the world run it's course. I'd probably stop the genocide... but maybe things do happen for a non-random reason, and if I stopped it, things would turn out terribly. Like that Ray Bradbury short story where the guys build a time machine and they start taking people back in time for money, under the condition that no one touches anything... and then someone finds a butterfly on their shoe. When they come back, the world is in total chaos; civil war everywhere, etc. Maybe I thought about this more than I should have.

[jenarelJAM]

I would respond, but I'd be breaking all the anti-politics rules... so I won't.

[gimp]

I'd stop a friend from committing suicide. Or maybe go back like 12 hours and tell myself not to break out the 151. That would get rid of this hangover. :cheers:

[BobTheCow]

It's Columbine, with a B. Just sayin'.

[behemoth]

I'd say 9/11, but how would you stop it?

thats my question

Would you go 'PLANES ARE GOING TO HIT THE TOWERS, ITS BINLADEN!'

You cant be on a few different planes to stop them physically

:shrug:

[BeaverEater]

come on, hasnt anyone seen back to the future. Dont mess with time or it will mess up everything you know. :nono:

[FiXeL]

You cannot change the past, but you can change the future. :)

[billybob_81067]

You cannot change the past, but you can change the future. :)

I have been inspired! :clap:

[MANN]

I would respond, but I'd be breaking all the anti-politics rules... so I won't.

LOL I agree

[thefool]

Come With Me
And You'll Be
In A World Of Pure Imagination
Take A Look
And You'll See
Into Your Imagination
We'll Begin
With A Spin
Travelling In The World Of My Creation
What We'll See
Will Defy
Explanation
If You Want To View Paradise
Simply Look Around And View It
Anything You Want To, Do It
Want To Change The World
There's Nothing
To It
There Is No Life I Know
To Compare With Pure Imagination
Living There
You'll Be Free
If You Truly Wish To Be
If You Want To View Paradise
Simply Look Around And View It
Anything You Want To, Do It
Want To Change The World
There's Nothing
To It
There Is No Life I Know
To Compare With Pure Imagination
Living There
You'll Be Free
If You Truly
Wish to be

[ahellers]

Charlie and the chocolate fartory FTW... Fitting for your 420th post ;)
t

[maxama10]

I'd prevent the genocide in Rwanda, or, obviously, 9/11. Maybe I'd do nothing, and let the world run it's course. I'd probably stop the genocide... but maybe things do happen for a non-random reason, and if I stopped it, things would turn out terribly. Like that Ray Bradbury short story where the guys build a time machine and they start taking people back in time for money, under the condition that no one touches anything... and then someone finds a butterfly on their shoe. When they come back, the world is in total chaos; civil war everywhere, etc. Maybe I thought about this more than I should have.
I watched that movie just the other night. Completely changes evolution...

[stop whining buy a mag]

I'd stop Chris from ever thinking of the Devilmag. And Tag for even thinking about making a board for us. And stop sluggos from going out of production.

I think that would cut back whining on this forum by 10%.

[ahellers]

I watched that movie just the other night. Completely changes evolution...

whats the name of that movie? sounds interesting.
t

[edweird]

pardon my blatant breaking of the "within my lifetime" rule and the presumed blasphemy(based on your own personal beleifs) of this statement, but I would consider traveling back in time and executing abraham(assuming he existed in the first place, if not then the original author(s) of such tales in his youth would be equally sutable) before his influence on the world led to the creation of all three abrahamic religions. In the place of the dogma that resulted from abraham's influence, I would hope to spread freethought, reason, and prematurely reinvent the scientific method from the original egyptian/greek concepts to something that can unite humanity instead of promoting the sectarianism that abrahamic religions thrive upon.

doing so, I would hopefully abridge all of the atrocities commited against ourselves in the name of imaginary fingerwaving beings dreamed up in the middle east. Frankly the amount of truely inhuman events commited in the name of god that such a murder would prevent is astronomical.

[thefool]

if your going to go there, y not just stop europeans from obtaining gun poweder and there for inventing guns. The chinese were extreamly advanced, as were the aztchs, as were the indians.

The other native americans did just fine, living harmony with the earth, and african tribes were also very advanced before the europeans came in with guns.

If the europeans never got guns, the world would have never gone through industrialization probably, but scientific inovations would have still occured. We'd live on a much cleaner earth, possibly where we'd be behind our current state of advancement, but maybe that wouldnt be altoghter bad.

The world would be a peaceful place, with the exeption of the european barbarians.

theres your 420+1st post :D

[Fred]

I'd go back to whenever AO became friendly to non-automags, and slap the naysayers silly, in a fanatical effort to reinvigorate the AO Automag Zealots that made this place kick butt compared to everything else on the web.

And I'd have participated more in the Starbasecgi encounters...

[Chaos_Theory!]

Adam and Eve

I woulda ***** slapped that snake (if you can even do that to a snake) or done something to stop the two from making the worste mistake of all time.

This only applies to people who believe in christianity and what not.

[thecavemankevin]

i think i'd have to go back and beat heff to the punch with the whole playboy thing.....

/me wishing i could be heff
//me thinking with the (not so little) little head again.

[-=squid#2=-]

I'd go back in time, and change "Columbine" to "Columdine"... This way I wouldn't have to call the threadstarter and idiot.

Idiot.

[thecavemankevin]

I'd go back in time, and change "Columbine" to "Columdine"... This way I wouldn't have to call the threadstarter and idiot.

Idiot.

http://www.myneonspeed.com/forums/images/smiles/lol_hitting.gif

[Altimas]

I would give everyone assorted superpowers and we would all battle to the death.

[-=squid#2=-]

I would give everyone assorted superpowers and we would all battle to the death.
How the hell would a time machine do that? Are you retarded?

[maxama10]

whats the name of that movie? sounds interesting.
t
A Sound of Thunder

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/sound_of_thunder/

[tropical_fishy]

A Sound of Thunder

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/sound_of_thunder/


I haven't seen the movie, but the short story was really good.

[WenULiVeUdiE]

Sudan/Darfur.

'Nuf said.

[tropical_fishy]

Sudan/Darfur.

'Nuf said.


Amen to that :(

[WenULiVeUdiE]

Amen to that :(

I'm working with some teachers in my school to put together a benefit concert for Darfur. Local bands as well as one or two big ones.

If I can't go back and change what happened, then I will be damned if I can not help those in need.

[stop whining buy a mag]

/Steps into flame retardent suit.

Just an open question here. Why does everyone find it so necessary to help out everyone in need? The rest of the world can't rely on the US (and other powerful nations) to help them everytime their government gets taken over by a militia group or a civil war erupts.

[tropical_fishy]

/Steps into flame retardent suit.

Just an open question here. Why does everyone find it so necessary to help out everyone in need? The rest of the world can't rely on the US (and other powerful nations) to help them everytime their government gets taken over by a militia group or a civil war erupts.

Because sometimes, people have this little thing called empathy. Sometimes, people look beyond what's happening in their own kitchen, and even their own backyard, and they see the way other people are being treated.

People (in general, not necessarily governments) need to help people who can't help themselves. When thousands of Rwandans were hacked apart by machetes, the rest of the world STOOD BY AND WATCHED. As thousands of Sudanese are slaughtered in Darfur, the world stands by and watches. As the Jews were massacred in Germany, the world turned a blind eye. So tell me, how well do YOU sleep at night, talking that kind of "I-can't-save-the-world-so-why-try" attitude? Have you thought about what would happen if suddenly being a white male (forgive my assumptions, this is the interwebs after all) was a crime punishable by death? Would you want the world to sit by and chastize you and say, "you can't rely on us whenever you get in trouble..."


Lastly, as trite and cliche as it is, have a listen:



When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

[WenULiVeUdiE]

/Steps into flame retardent suit.

Just an open question here. Why does everyone find it so necessary to help out everyone in need? The rest of the world can't rely on the US (and other powerful nations) to help them everytime their government gets taken over by a militia group or a civil war erupts.

Because some things should truly not happen. It is not about borders. It is not about race. It is not about nationality. It is about humanity...

[tropical_fishy]

Because some things should truly not happen. It is not about borders. It is not about race. It is not about nationality. It is about humanity...


Exactly. Human rights are human rights are human rights. They're universal.

When a militia takes over a country, it's not the elite that suffer (usually). It's the innocents. And there's no reason they should suffer.

[ahellers]

Because sometimes, people have this little thing called empathy. Sometimes, people look beyond what's happening in their own kitchen, and even their own backyard, and they see the way other people are being treated.

People (in general, not necessarily governments) need to help people who can't help themselves. When thousands of Rwandans were hacked apart by machetes, the rest of the world STOOD BY AND WATCHED. As thousands of Sudanese are slaughtered in Darfur, the world stands by and watches. As the Jews were massacred in Germany, the world turned a blind eye. So tell me, how well do YOU sleep at night, talking that kind of "I-can't-save-the-world-so-why-try" attitude? Have you thought about what would happen if suddenly being a white male (forgive my assumptions, this is the interwebs after all) was a crime punishable by death? Would you want the world to sit by and chastize you and say, "you can't rely on us whenever you get in trouble..."


Lastly, as trite and cliche as it is, have a listen:

while i agree with your over all message, i do belive that the killing of jews in WWII was hidden from the out side world, at least I know the GIs who came across it had no idea.
but like I said I agree with you 100%
t

[tropical_fishy]

while i agree with your over all message, i do belive that the killing of jews in WWII was hidden from the out side world, at least I know the GIs who came across it had no idea.
t

The Germans knew what was going on, at the very least. You can't hide 6 million people disappearing. It just doesn't happen. Yes, some people didn't know, but you can bet your teapot that a fair amount of people knew-- enough to cause a stir.

[koleah]

Am I missing the point or is everyone else missing the point? The question was:

If you could go back in time to one event within your life time where you could make a differnce where would you go?

Does this mean going back to any event in your lifetime and magically changing things (ie making the planes not hit the buildings), or going back to any event in your life where YOU could actually make a difference (ie stopping the bullies from beating you that time in third grade where you got jumped in the boys bathroom)?

Cuz Sudan/Darfur/Rwanda/9-11, I'm not so sure one average person could make a difference. Maybe if you could go back and kill Bin Laden or something.

Although I suppose for the sake of public conversation, that time you got jumped in the third grade isn't that big a deal on the grand scale of whats happened in our lifetimes...

Clarification ahellers?
:confused: :confused:

[warbeak2099]

Ever seen "The Final Countdown" starring Kirk Douglas? I wouldn't mess with time...

And I quote from the movie, "What if you go back and get into an argument with your grandfather and kill him? It would mean your father was never born and therefore you were never born. And if you were never born, then you could never have gone back in time to kill your grandfather." Messing with the past would cause some kind of paradox no matter what. I don't care if you're preventing Columbine or like in the movie, Pearl Harbor. Even if we could change the past, I wouldn't want to.

Good movie btw, everyone should see it. And no it was made before the song by Europe. Good song too though...

[gus13]

"eddies in the space time continium you see,"
"oh, is he?"
(a notso direct quote from the Hitchikers guide to the Galaxy)

[kosmo]

I would go back a few months and not buy that beer at the German McDonalds. Holy crap, was that a bad beer.

[Maggot6]

Quite Honestly, have magically President Bush not elected...

Just without Bush, the likelyhood of a few thousand American Citizens being killed (and growing), the massive amount of money blown (and growing), and continuosly growing hatred towards the US would've been deminished by so much...

Of course, Gore wasn't a big prize in my eyes either, so it'd have to be someone who looked a little brighter.

I always thought when I was wee'er that I'd move to the USA, because it looked like it had so much potential, and well, I still might go there but it looks alot grimmer now..

Speaking from a Canadian living in Germany's perspective...

[SCpoloRicker]

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/3313/workforhitlerij4.jpg

[MoeMag]

Insert harsh political statements here in agreement with maggot, but from an american.

[tropical_fishy]

Am I missing the point or is everyone else missing the point? The question was:

If you could go back in time to one event within your life time where you could make a differnce where would you go?

Does this mean going back to any event in your lifetime and magically changing things (ie making the planes not hit the buildings), or going back to any event in your life where YOU could actually make a difference (ie stopping the bullies from beating you that time in third grade where you got jumped in the boys bathroom)?

Cuz Sudan/Darfur/Rwanda/9-11, I'm not so sure one average person could make a difference. Maybe if you could go back and kill Bin Laden or something.

Although I suppose for the sake of public conversation, that time you got jumped in the third grade isn't that big a deal on the grand scale of whats happened in our lifetimes...

Clarification ahellers?
:confused: :confused:

I guess most of us figure, that since, you know, we're magically going back in time that we would magically have the power to change the things we want to change, right?

[Altimas]

Yes...and therefore I am not retarded because i want everyone to have super powers and one final Super melee. However I am a nerd that enjoys Comic books to much.

[geekwarrior]

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/3313/workforhitlerij4.jpg

should have translated that into german

[thecavemankevin]

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/3313/workforhitlerij4.jpg

http://www.myneonspeed.com/forums/images/smiles/lol_hitting.gifhttp://www.myneonspeed.com/forums/images/smiles/lol_hitting.gifhttp://www.myneonspeed.com/forums/images/smiles/lol_hitting.gifhttp://www.myneonspeed.com/forums/images/smiles/lol_hitting.gifhttp://www.myneonspeed.com/forums/images/smiles/lol_hitting.gifhttp://www.myneonspeed.com/forums/images/smiles/lol_hitting.gifhttp://www.myneonspeed.com/forums/images/smiles/lol_hitting.gif

[ahellers]

Am I missing the point or is everyone else missing the point? The question was:

If you could go back in time to one event within your life time where you could make a differnce where would you go?

Does this mean going back to any event in your lifetime and magically changing things (ie making the planes not hit the buildings), or going back to any event in your life where YOU could actually make a difference (ie stopping the bullies from beating you that time in third grade where you got jumped in the boys bathroom)?

Cuz Sudan/Darfur/Rwanda/9-11, I'm not so sure one average person could make a difference. Maybe if you could go back and kill Bin Laden or something.

Although I suppose for the sake of public conversation, that time you got jumped in the third grade isn't that big a deal on the grand scale of whats happened in our lifetimes...

Clarification ahellers?
:confused: :confused:

well I was thinking what you could do in real life to make a difference...
t

[Swampy]

Personally I'd go back in time (6yrs ago) and not sold dope, that led to me getting thrown in the klink.

I have my own views for rawanda, sudan, and 9/11. And personally I think you'd all hate me like that Soopa character so I'll keep to myself. Besides this is the internet not a bar so why is politics even on here?

[geekwarrior]

dream it you crying dreamers!

[SCpoloRicker]

And personally I think you'd all hate me like that Soopa character so I'll keep to myself. Besides this is the internet not a bar so why is politics even on here?

It would take a pretty concentrated effort to get Soopa level of, er, favor. I wouldn't worry. As for arguing politics, there are far cooler places to argue with AOers about that.

/without filters
//still have idjits, though

[CKY_Alliance]

Where the hell my post go...

[thefool]

/without filters
//still have idjits, though
Aww cmon filters are fun. They make us say things like poopy, and fiddlesticks if we encounter somting that dissatisfies us.

[Boski51]

pardon my blatant breaking of the "within my lifetime" rule and the presumed blasphemy(based on your own personal beleifs) of this statement, but I would consider traveling back in time and executing abraham(assuming he existed in the first place, if not then the original author(s) of such tales in his youth would be equally sutable) before his influence on the world led to the creation of all three abrahamic religions. In the place of the dogma that resulted from abraham's influence, I would hope to spread freethought, reason, and prematurely reinvent the scientific method from the original egyptian/greek concepts to something that can unite humanity instead of promoting the sectarianism that abrahamic religions thrive upon.

doing so, I would hopefully abridge all of the atrocities commited against ourselves in the name of imaginary fingerwaving beings dreamed up in the middle east. Frankly the amount of truely inhuman events commited in the name of god that such a murder would prevent is astronomical.

Just wait until you wake up and get a clue. Only at that point will you understand what a moronic statement that really was.

Good luck with that.

[tropical_fishy]

Just wait until you wake up and get a clue. Only at that point will you understand what a moronic statement that really was.

Good luck with that.

There was nothing moronic about his statement. Reinventing the wheel looks like a pretty good idea right now.

If God is the Abrahamic God, He'd find another way to get His message through.

[gus13]

I understand he's saying he'd destroy the 12 tribes of isreal hoping to end the atrocities throughout the ages but I have to agree, it was kinda moronic. how do the ends justify the means? and anyway you can't do anything to change the past and if you could it still wouldn't be all that different. I believe that it would still happen just in a different time and for a different reason.

[SCpoloRicker]

Just wait until you wake up and get a clue. Only at that point will you understand what a moronic statement that really was.

Good luck with that.

http://www.venganza.org/sighting/images/10.jpg

[slade]

http://www.squidi.net/comic/tsd/comic/tsd2-037.png


Just wait until you wake up and get a clue. Only at that point will you understand what a moronic statement that really was.

Good luck with that.
Lol.

now were you trying to say that its moronic to think that humans would follow on such a path, and would not kill each other? because that would have some creditability.

if youre trying to say its moronic to be athiest and to realize what has come from the abuse of religion... then nothing anyone can say will really help, so forget it.

[Boski51]

Great idea: Kill the guy who God used to start the three major world religions so no one would die because of religious wars. Forgetting the fact that wars are never about religion. They are always about economics, money and power. Religion is just the fall guy. So you can blame God all you want, but it really is the fault of the ATM.

[Boski51]

I understand he's saying he'd destroy the 12 tribes of isreal hoping to end the atrocities throughout the ages but I have to agree, it was kinda moronic. how do the ends justify the means? and anyway you can't do anything to change the past and if you could it still wouldn't be all that different. I believe that it would still happen just in a different time and for a different reason.

Exactly!

[WenULiVeUdiE]

Great idea: Kill the guy who God used to start the three major world religions so no one would die because of religious wars. Forgetting the fact that wars are never about religion. They are always about economics, money and power. Religion is just the fall guy. So you can blame God all you want, but it really is the fault of the ATM.

Umm....Crusades anyone?

Yeah, I know you are using modern references, but when speaking about an event that would take place 2006 years ago, you can not just speak about modern times.

[tropical_fishy]

Great idea: Kill the guy who God used to start the three major world religions so no one would die because of religious wars. Forgetting the fact that wars are never about religion. They are always about economics, money and power. Religion is just the fall guy. So you can blame God all you want, but it really is the fault of the ATM.


Once again: if God IS the Abrahamic God, He would find a way to get His message through with or WITHOUT Abraham.

Terrible things are done in the name of God. I am not anti-God, nor am I anti-Christian, but I do think that saying "nothing is about religion" is ridiculous and simplistic.

[slade]

Great idea: Kill the guy who God used to start the three major world religions so no one would die because of religious wars. Forgetting the fact that wars are never about religion. They are always about economics, money and power. Religion is just the fall guy. So you can blame God all you want, but it really is the fault of the ATM.
what? wars have been fought for even trivial matters regarding religion. wars have been fought for other matters regarding religion. even in wars for economics, money or power, religion is used as a justification and incentive.

[ahellers]

alright every one. i think this is getting into the religious zone and we dont want this thread closed do we?
t

[bornl33t]

what does abraham have to do with it?

Fishy is right, look at how many new religions pop up every year. That was a dumb statement.

"Strange as it seems, no amount of learning can cure stupidity, and higher education positively fortifies it."
Stephen Vizinczey

[billybob_81067]

"Strange as it seems, no amount of learning can cure stupidity, and higher education positively fortifies it."
Stephen Vizinczey

Hey you can't use the same quote in every thread! :p

[geekwarrior]

I can show you the world
Shining, shimmering, splendid
Tell me, princess, now when did
You last let your heart decide?

I can open your eyes
Take you wonder by wonder
Over, sideways and under
On a magic carpet ride

A whole new world
A new fantastic point of view
No one to tell us no
Or where to go
Or say we're only dreaming

A whole new world
A dazzling place I never knew
But when I'm way up here
It's crystal clear
That now I'm in a whole new world with you
Now I'm in a whole new world with you

/sorry everytime I see this thread
/yes its teh ghey

[tropical_fishy]

I can show you the world
Shining, shimmering, splendid
Tell me, princess, now when did
You last let your heart decide?

I can open your eyes
Take you wonder by wonder
Over, sideways and under
On a magic carpet ride

A whole new world
A new fantastic point of view
No one to tell us no
Or where to go
Or say we're only dreaming

A whole new world
A dazzling place I never knew
But when I'm way up here
It's crystal clear
That now I'm in a whole new world with you
Now I'm in a whole new world with you

/sorry everytime I see this thread
/yes its teh ghey

Dude, that song is totally about sex. Or an acid trip. But I can't see Disney trying to rip off Steppenwolf.

[Armory]

It is not in the hands of any man to want to change this world, man has been given the right of free will. Each man, woman and child must make thier own dicisions right or wrong. It is in hope that man learns from the errors and success of those who have come before us and have the wisdom to use this knowledge. To forgive our enemies of wrong doing, to move into the future with a pure heart, mind and soul; wiser and our minds opened to the ideas of others. Man has been given that choice, those decisions are to be made by each humanbeing so that some day man may never have to consider changing the world, it will already have changed and in our image. Alas, there is 1 thing that I would change to help better man kind to further our pursuit of equality and divinety...

:mad: DESTROY SMART PARTS!!! :mad:

[bornl33t]

Hey you can't use the same quote in every thread! :p

It's a goood quote tho! And it totally applies!

[edweird]

Just wait until you wake up and get a clue. Only at that point will you understand what a moronic statement that really was.

Good luck with that.

Im not going to argue with you, as someone who is totally in debt to your faith your obviously not intersted in reason at all. Faith relys on the users complete disinterest in deductive reasoning and the exploration of evidence, thus its illogical to argue with you at all since your incapable to understand reason, consideration evidence, and will most likley respond with attempts to use rational thought by changing the topic to avoid dealing with hard data.


Great idea: Kill the guy who God used to start the three major world religions so no one would die because of religious wars. Forgetting the fact that wars are never about religion. They are always about economics, money and power. Religion is just the fall guy. So you can blame God all you want, but it really is the fault of the ATM.

I only continue because someone else might gleen some enlightenment from this.

:tard: Religion is a tool, used by man to influence the masses in order to further his pursuits of politics, economics, and other selfish conquests. It has nothing to do with god at all as god clearly is the biggest fairy tale ever; but because something does not exist does not mean the idea of it is without blame. But to say that organized religion is never the cause of wars is plain ignorance. Do I need to remind you about that strip of land people have been killing each other over for thousands of years so they can be closer to rocks to beat their heads against? Also I dont suppose you think that suicide vests are the leading cause of improving your own "Economics, money, and power"?

Changing the superstition from the source is the perfect way to both test the validity of the magic in the first place, and hopefully skew the viral idea/meme that is abrahamic religion to something geared more toward tolorance, enlightenment and respect for your fellow person. Instead of the current system based on fear the big man upstairs and follow the rules or your not getting your good afterlife. Or worse, someone understanding there is no imaginary man, pretend you beleive anyway and dupe society to aid your delusions of grandeur under threat that your influence/divine right of kings gives you an inside line to alter gods naughty and nice list.

Yes I am an atheist, and I would prefer my world without the ideas of: Jihad, Crusades, Inquisition, Zealotry, Female Circumcision, Sin, Idols, Fatwa, Dogma, heck the whole concept that another person is by birthright better than another by default. Lets all just grow up and understand that magic is fake already... ok?

[geekwarrior]

to something geared on tolorance, enlightenment and respect for your fellow person. Instead of the current system of fear the big man upstairs and follow the rules or your not getting your good afterlife.



Interesting. If this short life was all I had, and there are no consequences afterward, why should I care about tolerance, enlightenment, or respect for my fellow person?

[edweird]

Interesting. If this short life was all I had, and there are no consequences afterward, why should I care about tolerance, enlightenment, or respect for my fellow person?

because this is the only life your ever going to have, or that you can prove that your ever going to have... so your duty as a human being is to make sure that it is the best one you can ever possibly have, instead of suffering though it, hoping that it ends without incident so you can have your peice of heaven.

Also try to live life not for yourself, but for the positive effect it has on the only life others will have too.

[geekwarrior]

because this is the only life your ever going to have, or that you can prove that your ever going to have... so your duty as a human being is to make sure that it is the best one you can ever possibly have, instead of suffering though it, hoping that it ends without incident so you can have your peice of heaven.

Also try to live life not for yourself, but for the positive effect it has on the only life others will have too.


but why? who cares? If this is the only life I am ever going to have, why not live it for yourself and not waste it on others? duty as a human being? why is it my duty? because you said so?

[slade]

Interesting. If this short life was all I had, and there are no consequences afterward, why should I care about tolerance, enlightenment, or respect for my fellow person?
if you cant answer that question yourself, maybe you do need religion to keep you in line.

[Boski51]

because this is the only life your ever going to have, or that you can prove that your ever going to have... so your duty as a human being is to make sure that it is the best one you can ever possibly have, instead of suffering though it, hoping that it ends without incident so you can have your peice of heaven.

Also try to live life not for yourself, but for the positive effect it has on the only life others will have too.

Why? A human being is just a freak of an unknowing, uncaring mistake of chance. Why should I give a flying **** about you or anyone else in society. Why should I live to a code invented by some guy more than 5000 years ago. Why should I try to be anything other than my natural self. I should kill whatever I want, have sex with whatever I want, take whatever I want from whomever I want. I should live whatever life I want, because it really doesn't matter. It's kind of like living in LA....

[geekwarrior]

what? wars have been fought for even trivial matters regarding religion. wars have been fought for other matters regarding religion. even in wars for economics, money or power, religion is used as a justification and incentive.


absoulutely. It was done in the name of religion, but doesnt always mean that it was done in accordance with(because religion told tham too).

also note that alot of good has been done in the name of religion. Billions of dollars and aide given to needing people. paintball is a safe sport, until some idiot starts doing drive bys. does that make the entire sport bad. Most religions teach love and kindness, respect for authority, and peace. people (not saying you) talk about tolerance and freedom of speech and then in the next breath say that religion shouldnt be tolerated and you can't talk about God.

[geekwarrior]

if you cant answer that question yourself, maybe you do need religion to keep you in line.

I see you chose the easy way out....

[SCpoloRicker]

To answer the "why should I bother?" question; my answer would be because you believe it's the right thing to do.

I'm a secular humanist. I try and do good in this life, not with the expectation of reward, nor the fear of reprisal.

Moral behavior solely as a means of avoiding punishment from a god that may or may not exist is child-like behavior.

[SCpoloRicker]

I see you chose the easy way out....

You mean the logical conclusion to draw from statements made by you and Boski?

[Boski51]

To answer the "why should I bother?" question; my answer would be because you believe it's the right thing to do.

I'm a secular humanist. I try and do good in this life, not with the expectation of reward, nor the fear of reprisal.

Moral behavior solely as a means of avoiding punishment from a god that may or may not exist is child-like behavior.

Why would you want to "do good" in life. By what measure do you define "good"? What reward are you trying to earn by being "good"?

Why would you think your viewpoint is any more logical than mine?

[geekwarrior]

To answer the "why should I bother?" question; my answer would be because you believe it's the right thing to do.

I'm a secular humanist. I try and do good in this life, not with the expectation of reward, nor the fear of reprisal.


But why do you believe its the right thing to do? believe according to what? And "good" is a relative term.

My answer would be because of love for others. I love my kids, family and friends and show respect to them because of it, and want them to have a good life, so I do good by them. Also because of the golden rule.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is there is scorn for people who believe in religion. Why? because it can't be proven by science. Yet your feelings of what is right and wrong and what is good can't be proven by science either. Some find the teachings of religion as a moral compass, you rely on what you feel is right. Does science tell you that love and respect trumps self gratification? No.



Moral behavior solely as a means of avoiding punishment from a god that may or may not exist is child-like behavior.

Child like behavior. if it was mere childhood behavior than there would be no need for laws. There are laws because there is good and evil in this world. Religion doesn't teach that you should do good BECAUSE you will be punished if you don't, it teaches you to do good out of love your fellow man. It doesn't teach (at least Christianity) that you have to be perfect. It says do good, show love, be sorry for wrong you do do, and believe. I'm pretty sure you're moral compass says all the same things except for the last "believe part".


sorry if this doesnt all make sense(relatively speaking), Im kinda rambling

[don miguel]

make LOVE not WAR!

[edweird]

im home briefly from work cause I forgot something...

SCpoloRicker and slade:

thanks for fighting the good fight while I was sweating with the fatties at unit PT

as for the rest of you animals:

If you cannot understand what it means to do the right thing for the greater good, then you are obviously best served by the fear of the imaginary. The rest of us dont need the carrot and stick routine to make headway and do the right thing day in and out.

/off to go play with more conventional airmunitions
//I will check on this later(if the zealots dont screw it up for us) when I get a break at work; hopefully

[geekwarrior]

im home briefly from work cause I forgot something...

SCpoloRicker and slade:

thanks for fighting the good fight while I was sweating with the fatties at unit PT

as for the rest of you animals:

If you cannot understand what it means to do the right thing for the greater good, then you are obviously best served by the fear of the imaginary. The rest of us dont need the carrot and stick routine to make headway and do the right thing day in and out.

/off to go play with more conventional airmunitions
//I will check on this later(if the zealots dont screw it up for us) when I get a break at work; hopefully

i was trying to keep this somewhat philosophical and was just trying to understand your views. So far you implied that I am a zealot, a animal, childlike among other things, so I'm done with this discussion. I can see your good for other doesn't go very far.

[bentothejam1n]

absoulutely. It was done in the name of religion, but doesnt always mean that it was done in accordance with(because religion told tham too).

also note that alot of good has been done in the name of religion. Billions of dollars and aide given to needing people. paintball is a safe sport, until some idiot starts doing drive bys. does that make the entire sport bad. Most religions teach love and kindness, respect for authority, and peace. people (not saying you) talk about tolerance and freedom of speech and then in the next breath say that religion shouldnt be tolerated and you can't talk about God.
my thoughts exactly

[edweird]

i was trying to keep this somewhat philosophical and was just trying to understand your views. So far you implied that I am a zealot, a animal, childlike among other things, so I'm done with this discussion. I can see your good for other doesn't go very far.


you have been doing a good job so far, sorry I left you off the list of kudos... the comment wasnt bashing you, I have an insanly limited time to get back accross town and felt I needed to chime in again. /overlooked +1 Keep up the philosophical side, im digging the discussion(although I do have to get back to work and wont get to read it for some time)


as for the cuss filter circumventer, that is another issue.

[SCpoloRicker]

Why would you want to "do good" in life. By what measure do you define "good"? What reward are you trying to earn by being "good"?

Why would you think your viewpoint is any more logical than mine?

You're right, it's grey, not black/white. Personally, I'm not trying to earn any rewards. Given the choice, I simply choose to act in what I consider to be the best way possible given the situation.

And, I don't think my viewpoint is more logical than yours. Everyone has to find a way to make decisions. I simply don't factor in / worry about any theological implications.



My answer would be because of love for others. I love my kids, family and friends and show respect to them because of it, and want them to have a good life, so I do good by them. Also because of the golden rule.

That's a perfectly good reason. How is faith required to choose these values? If you didn't have faith, wouldn't the same things be important?

*aside* This has been fairly civil, which is cool. I will try and keep it that way on my end. :cheers:

/edit: my typing is horrific, as I'm trying to get out of here :(

[tropical_fishy]

There is nothing wrong with doing the right thing. There is also nothing wrong with having faith. I think the issue is when we use faith as a reason to do something, rather than doing the right thing because it is the correct thing to do in the situation. If we allow faith to rule our lives (rather than enhance or guide), then we become, in the Hobbesian sense, "wicked" men. Our actions are not good for the sake of being good, but rather out of fear of the reprecussions of not doing "good." I've never put much stock in Kant, but he says something similar: if your intentions aren't pure, then your actions aren't truly good.

[Jeffy-CanCon]

so If you could go back in time to one event within your life time where you could make a differnce where would you go?



In our own lifetimes? That's pretty restrictive.

I'd go back and stop Bill Clinton from getting elected in 92. So he couldn't sell us all out to the Chinese.

[Boski51]

You're right, it's grey, not black/white. Personally, I'm not trying to earn any rewards. Given the choice, I simply choose to act in what I consider to be the best way possible given the situation.

And, I don't think my viewpoint is more logical than yours. Everyone has to find a way to make decisions. I simply don't factor in / worry about any theological implications.



That's a perfectly good reason. How is faith required to choose these values? If you didn't have faith, wouldn't the same things be important?

*aside* This has been fairly civil, which is cool. I will try and keep it that way on my end. :cheers:

/edit: my typing is horrific, as I'm trying to get out of here :(

The values that you are defining as "good" are a result of the Jewish and Chrisitian faiths. Without those faiths you would not have those values as they are now defined.

The ten commandments are the basis for so much of American law and moral culture that most don't even see that connection. They are so much a part of your life and what you define as good, without them and you loose the basis of "good moral behaviour".

You don't need to be Jewish or Chrisitian to have those as a moral compass, but that compass is made by those faiths.

[sniper1rfa]

I would give everyone assorted superpowers and we would all battle to the death.


QFT

[tropical_fishy]

The values that you are defining as "good" are a result of the Jewish and Chrisitian faiths. Without those faiths you would not have those values as they are now defined.

The ten commandments are the basis for so much of American law and moral culture that most don't even see that connection. They are so much a part of your life and what you define as good, without them and you loose the basis of "good moral behaviour".

You don't need to be Jewish or Chrisitian to have those as a moral compass, but that compass is made by those faiths.


Way to leave out Islam. It was cut from the same cloth.

[slade]

The values that you are defining as "good" are a result of the Jewish and Chrisitian faiths. Without those faiths you would not have those values as they are now defined.

The ten commandments are the basis for so much of American law and moral culture that most don't even see that connection. They are so much a part of your life and what you define as good, without them and you loose the basis of "good moral behaviour".

You don't need to be Jewish or Chrisitian to have those as a moral compass, but that compass is made by those faiths.
oh? any particular examples? id love to hear them.

most of what is conventionally defined as "good" can be shown to be advantageous through logic and reason. what cant be shown to be "good", people (like ricker) follow because it is the norm, and defying it isnt worth the trouble. so i don't quite understand what your argument is... that aside from forcing people to do what they should do anyway, religion puts a social/societal burden on people?

and, you are completely overlooking one possibility. suppose for a second athiests are right. someone, at some point, created the rules on which religion is based. why? perhaps because such rules (do not kill, do not steal) provided an adequate basis for the operation of society. in which case, people should be able to understand them without religion.

now, suppose theists are right. god created the rules on which religion is based. why? there must be some discernable reason which people should be able to derive.

and remember, there have been a lot of religious rules which have been discarded... about 500 of them, along with the 10 commandments. quite a few of them involved farm animals.


There is nothing wrong with doing the right thing. There is also nothing wrong with having faith. I think the issue is when we use faith as a reason to do something, rather than doing the right thing because it is the correct thing to do in the situation. If we allow faith to rule our lives (rather than enhance or guide), then we become, in the Hobbesian sense, "wicked" men. Our actions are not good for the sake of being good, but rather out of fear of the reprecussions of not doing "good." I've never put much stock in Kant, but he says something similar: if your intentions aren't pure, then your actions aren't truly good.
ehh, kant is a bunch of bull. what youre saying is right, its much better to do what is "good" with pure intentions rather than for fear of retribution, divine or otherwise. but it brings up an interesting point. is it better to have 80% of the people do what is right because its right, or have 90% of the people do what is right out of fear?

[bornl33t]

so all everyone is trying to achieve is the freedom to do whatever they want. Just through morals out, right? Soooo.... where do we draw the line and why there?

Premarital sex is ok? How about stealing? How would you feel about being assaulted? Does murder count as a "societal burden".

There are people that feel this is normal to society and feel they are imprisoned without a reason.

I think morals are the basis for civilization. Without morals we have anarchy.

[slade]

so all everyone is trying to achieve is the freedom to do whatever they want. Just through morals out, right? Soooo.... where do we draw the line and why there?

Premarital sex is ok? How about stealing? How would you feel about being assaulted? Does murder count as a "societal burden".

There are people that feel this is normal to society and feel they are imprisoned without a reason.

I think morals are the basis for civilization. Without morals we have anarchy.
what is your definition of morality, and why must it not exist where religion does not exist?

[tropical_fishy]

so all everyone is trying to achieve is the freedom to do whatever they want. Just through morals out, right? Soooo.... where do we draw the line and why there?

Premarital sex is ok? How about stealing? How would you feel about being assaulted? Does murder count as a "societal burden".

There are people that feel this is normal to society and feel they are imprisoned without a reason.

I think morals are the basis for civilization. Without morals we have anarchy.


Ok, so basically... Premarital sex=stealing=assault=murder. Whee! Fantastic. I fail to see how something that is consentual between two people is the same as a person harming another. But maybe that's just me and my sinning, evil, premarital-sex having, girl-liking self.

I think that things that don't harm other human beings are okay. I mean, if you go off and smoke pot, it doesn't hurt me, so why should I tell you you're not allowed? As long as you're not off raping women or men, why should I care if you're having premarital or gay sex? It doesn't affect me. If you're hurting people, by stealing from them, or assaulting them, or even murdering them, then it becomes my business.

I really don't see how this is a confusing concept: either an action hurts others, or it doesn't.

Do stuff that makes you happy, and minimize the harm you do to others. Isn't that the essence of religion?

[kosmo]

You don't need to be Jewish or Chrisitian to have those as a moral compass, but that compass is made by those faiths.

You obviously arent in any way enlightened about ancient cultures. Those "Judeo Christian" moral values existed for thousands of years before Abrahamic religions. Pull your head out of your arse.

[billybob_81067]

Ok, so basically... Premarital sex=stealing=assault=murder. Whee! Fantastic. I fail to see how something that is consentual between two people is the same as a person harming another. But maybe that's just me and my sinning, evil, premarital-sex having, girl-liking self.

I think that things that don't harm other human beings are okay. I mean, if you go off and smoke pot, it doesn't hurt me, so why should I tell you you're not allowed? As long as you're not off raping women or men, why should I care if you're having premarital or gay sex? It doesn't affect me. If you're hurting people, by stealing from them, or assaulting them, or even murdering them, then it becomes my business.

I really don't see how this is a confusing concept: either an action hurts others, or it doesn't.

Do stuff that makes you happy, and minimize the harm you do to others. Isn't that the essence of religion?

What if there's two consenting adults, one of which kills the other in an assisted suicide? Both consented to it, no one was hurt other than the person who wanted it, and apparently no one's going to hell cause it doesn't exist.

/Sorry, just couldn't resist the 2 consenting people thing.
//Don't actually care how this thread turns out.

[kosmo]

What if there's two consenting adults, one of which kills the other in an assisted suicide? Both consented to it, no one was hurt other than the person who wanted it, and apparently no one's going to hell cause it doesn't exist.

/Sorry, just couldn't resist the 2 consenting people thing.
//Don't actually care how this thread turns out.

Who is that old guy who keeps doing that? Kevorkian? Whoever he is, hes right. Except for the part about not grinding them up afterwards into soilent green.

[billybob_81067]

Who is that old guy who keeps doing that? Kevorkian? Whoever he is, hes right. Except for the part about not grinding them up afterwards into soilent green.

Mmmmmmm.... soilent green.

[edweird]

I feel the first logical leap in freeing someone from the thought virus that is westren organized religion is helping them understand that conscience and morals can and do exist outside of theistic dogma and gospel. Moreover it is essential to understand that gospel and dogma are also not the original source of morality, or even architect of the law of man. Both morality and the law of man are concepts conceived and evolved from eons of prehistorical sectarian bickering and reasonable reaction to misbehavior, not from tablets carried down a mountain twice. Even in supposedly lesser genus and species the social stratum that exists also facilitates the same basic premises of "I'll scratch your back..." based co-operation and "do unto others..." that the engineers of the Bible/Torah/Qur'an worked in so well.

Secondly, lets not compare apples to oranges... Procreation for fun or purpose is not even in the realm of murder or suicide; lets not pretend that it is. This kind of inability to see reality without the rose colored glasses fosters the very same bigoted hate that is only holding us back as a species.

This brings me to my other issue, often the highly indoctrinated see the laws of god(scripture/dogma) as higher callings than the laws of man. This inability to differentiate right from wrong while clouded with righteous delusions of gradeur are leading zealots to murder doctors and wear suicide belts. In a world awake from the delusion that religion imposes upon us, we can stop dreaming of throngs of virgins awaiting us in heaven as a reward for martyrdom. You can understand that this is your one and only life, you cannot ask the invisible for forgiveness instead of asking the people you harmed in the first place, and your only asked by everyone to leave this world in a better condition then you got it in.

I will leave you all with an exerpt from illusionist Penn Jillette, from a essay he did for the NPR series "This I believe"


This I believe: I believe there is no God."

Having taken that step, it informs every moment of my life. I'm not greedy. I have love, blue skies, rainbows and Hallmark cards, and that has to be enough. It has to be enough, but it's everything in the world and everything in the world is plenty for me. It seems just rude to beg the invisible for more. Just the love of my family that raised me and the family I'm raising now is enough that I don't need heaven. I won the huge genetic lottery and I get joy every day.

Believing there's no God means I can't really be forgiven except by kindness and faulty memories. That's good; it makes me want to be more thoughtful. I have to try to treat people right the first time around.

Believing there's no God stops me from being solipsistic. I can read ideas from all different people from all different cultures. Without God, we can agree on reality, and I can keep learning where I'm wrong. We can all keep adjusting, so we can really communicate. I don't travel in circles where people say, "I have faith, I believe this in my heart and nothing you can say or do can shake my faith." That's just a long-winded religious way to say, "shut up," or another two words that the FCC likes less. But all obscenity is less insulting than, "How I was brought up and my imaginary friend means more to me than anything you can ever say or do." So, believing there is no God lets me be proven wrong and that's always fun. It means I'm learning something.

Believing there is no God means the suffering I've seen in my family, and indeed all the suffering in the world, isn't caused by an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent force that isn't bothered to help or is just testing us, but rather something we all may be able to help others with in the future. No God means the possibility of less suffering in the future.

Believing there is no God gives me more room for belief in family, people, love, truth, beauty, sex, Jell-O and all the other things I can prove and that make this life the best life I will ever have.

[bornl33t]

Ok, so basically... Premarital sex=stealing=assault=murder. Whee! Fantastic. I fail to see how something that is consensual between two people is the same as a person harming another. But maybe that's just me and my sinning, evil, premarital-sex having, girl-liking self.

I think that things that don't harm other human beings are okay. I mean, if you go off and smoke pot, it doesn't hurt me, so why should I tell you you're not allowed? As long as you're not off raping women or men, why should I care if you're having premarital or gay sex? It doesn't affect me. If you're hurting people, by stealing from them, or assaulting them, or even murdering them, then it becomes my business.

I really don't see how this is a confusing concept: either an action hurts others, or it doesn't.

Do stuff that makes you happy, and minimize the harm you do to others. Isn't that the essence of religion?

You are reading into what I was saying. I'm a simple man. The deep thinking is best left to those who pursue higher deducation...or?

I was making the example of morals based on the 10 commandments. Those where only a few of them. And generally I agree with you as far as your theory on not harming anyone else. BUT

Sometimes the things you do in your own home effect others and that's what some people don't understand. Let me elaborate:

You want to smoke a little weed. That's fine as far as I'm concerned, as long as you do it in your home AND wait for the effects to wear off before driving to the gas station to get a pack of smokes. But you see weed like all drugs impair your judgment. So now we need a system to monitor people who have a problem with this. Because despite what people with tell you, it does affect your driving.

Or something a little more simple. What about people who smoke? We all know that smoking causes many medical issues. Who pays for all the health problems of some one who choices to smoke in their own home.

What about the kids in foster homes? They are the product of a choice.

We could let people deal with their problems themselves, but the atrocities would make you cringe.

I saw this on a T-shirt a while back " Work harder, millions on welfare depend on you "
That really says it all.

But you are right about one thing. Being a Citizen in America ( not and illegal immigrant ) guarantees you the right to the pursuit of happiness.


Slade - no where in my post do I talk about religion. I know some very moral, non-religious people.

kosmo- Of course those values have existed since the beginning of time. You think Christianity and Judaism started with Abraham then you need to pull your head....

Morals can be twisted. Religion is to morals what a ruler is to a line. How would you know if a line was straight if you didn't have something straight to compare it to? Which is exactly why people don't like religion. They want bend or get rid of morals.

[tropical_fishy]

You want to smoke a little weed. That's fine as far as I'm concerned, as long as you do it in your home AND wait for the effects to wear off before driving to the gas station to get a pack of smokes. But you see weed like all drugs impair your judgment. So now we need a system to monitor people who have a problem with this. Because despite what people with tell you, it does affect your driving.

That's why I said you're free to do as you wish as long as you don't harm others. Billybob, I know you're just being obnoxious, and I don't want to get into my views on assisted suicide, but the difference between premarital sex and assisted suicide is you ARE harming another human being. Can another human consent to death? Can a person be sane and coherent enough TO consent to death? Those are important questions that haven't been answered yet.


Or something a little more simple. What about people who smoke? We all know that smoking causes many medical issues. Who pays for all the health problems of some one who choices to smoke in their own home.

You know, I'll be honest. Second-hand smoke doesn't bother me all that much, with all the carcinogens in the air, water, and food that are around today. Sure, it's bad for you, but a family, as an enitity, has the power to either put a stop to it or dictate that all smoking must be done outside.


What about the kids in foster homes? They are the product of a choice.

What about them? I don't understand the question. Should we limit the reproductive rights of minorities just so they don't produce a child that MIGHT end up in foster care? Forced sterilization ftw!


We could let people deal with their problems themselves, but the atrocities would make you cringe.

I'm not saying we should "make people deal with their problems themselves." I'm talking about morality. I dunno where you pulled this comment out of.


I saw this on a T-shirt a while back " Work harder, millions on welfare depend on you "
That really says it all.

Uhhhh yeah, once again, I don't understand how welfare has anything to do with morals.

People do stupid, immoral things. But we do not have the right to take away their rights (or anyone else's) to choice JUST out of the off-chance they might do something stupid.


But you are right about one thing. Being a Citizen in America ( not and illegal immigrant ) guarantees you the right to the pursuit of happiness.

Yes it does. Even though pursuit of happiness really means "right to own property."


Morals can be twisted. Religion is to morals what a ruler is to a line. How would you know if a line was straight if you didn't have something straight to compare it to? Which is exactly why people don't like religion. They want bend or get rid of morals.

No. People dislike religion for a plethora of different reasons, perhaps one of which you've mentioned. I dislike certain aspects of religion, like the hateful mindset it (CAN) foster; or the strict adherence to certain apparently arbitrary rules. But hey, that's just me. I'm going to hang out over here with my "don't harm others, and make yourself happy" philosophy, and after we die, we'll see what happens.

[slade]

What if there's two consenting adults, one of which kills the other in an assisted suicide? Both consented to it, no one was hurt other than the person who wanted it, and apparently no one's going to hell cause it doesn't exist.

/Sorry, just couldn't resist the 2 consenting people thing.
//Don't actually care how this thread turns out.
gray area. it really depends on the situation; it could either be that 1) the person was in such pain/physical incapability that it was for the best, or 2) either a tragic event had occured making the person emotionally imbalanced, or the person had a chemical imbalance and was severely depressed, in which case the person should know enough to not assist the suicide.


Slade - no where in my post do I talk about religion. I know some very moral, non-religious people.
then youre arguing with yourself, because no one ever said we should get rid of morality.


Morals can be twisted. Religion is to morals what a ruler is to a line. How would you know if a line was straight if you didn't have something straight to compare it to? Which is exactly why people don't like religion. They want bend or get rid of morals.
oh? how stupid of me, i didnt realize i wanted to get rid of morality.

saying religion is "the ruler" to compare everything to is rather shortsighted. in case you werent paying attention to the thread, the morality religion enforces existed, and can still exist, without religion. logic is a much better basis of comparison, and religion is much more readily twisted.

[bornl33t]

ok, then i bow to ya'lls superior wisdom. Dam you are an indignant cynical bunch.

[tropical_fishy]

ok, then i bow to ya'lls superior wisdom. Dam you are an indignant cynical bunch.

We're having a discussion. Neither of us has attacked you, we're just debating. It's good for the brains.

[slade]

ok, then i bow to ya'lls superior wisdom. Dam you are an indignant cynical bunch.
at first i misread "bunch" as a derogratory term you were applying to fishy.

[warbeak2099]

You guys do realize that only one signer of the Declaration of Independence was Christian and that our founding fathers were primarily Deists who believed in secular morals. So our nation is pretty much built on secularism. Otherwise we would be a theocracy.

Secular morality in a nutshell: Don't piss in the watering hole and you won't get punished by the herd. If you harm others in your actions, they are wrong. Otherwise they are not wrong. The way the American government was designed, it is not to be led by religion. Instead, it is to be crafted in the best interests of society.

Example. Homosexual parents have been shown to be fully functional. The contributions of homosexual people to society have been numerous and of high quality. The development of a child raised by gay parents has been shown to be normal and healthy. Homosexuality has actually never been shown to be dangerous to society. Therefore, there should be no laws against homosexuality in our country. We are not operating on Abrahamic morals (or at least we aren't supposed to bed), and therefore do not need to conform our laws or government to them.

This is a truth and it is part of what America is. You cannot disagree with that. However, you are certainly entitled to the opinion that we should be a theocracy. I disagree, but it's your right to that opinion. You cannot however say that America was founded on Judeo-Christian morality. That is simply an uneducated, untruth.

Also, just because our current president is trying to make decisions based on Christian morality, it does not mean he is doing things the way he is supposed to be doing them. Far from it. He is completely breaking from the tradition and system of the founding fathers.

[edweird]

well stated warbeak2099...

Might I add the mention of the Treaty of Tripoli(1796)? It has long been a standard in the arguement about the meaning behind the "separation of church and state".

Article 11:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

[bornl33t]

You guys do realize that only one signer of the Declaration of Independence was Christian and that our founding fathers were primarily Deists who believed in secular morals. So our nation is pretty much built on secularism. Otherwise we would be a theocracy.

Secular morality in a nutshell: Don't piss in the watering hole and you won't get punished by the herd. If you harm others in your actions, they are wrong. Otherwise they are not wrong. The way the American government was designed, it is not to be led by religion. Instead, it is to be crafted in the best interests of society.

Example. Homosexual parents have been shown to be fully functional. The contributions of homosexual people to society have been numerous and of high quality. The development of a child raised by gay parents has been shown to be normal and healthy. Homosexuality has actually never been shown to be dangerous to society. Therefore, there should be no laws against homosexuality in our country. We are not operating on Abrahamic morals (or at least we aren't supposed to bed), and therefore do not need to conform our laws or government to them.

This is a truth and it is part of what America is. You cannot disagree with that. However, you are certainly entitled to the opinion that we should be a theocracy. I disagree, but it's your right to that opinion. You cannot however say that America was founded on Judeo-Christian morality. That is simply an uneducated, untruth.

Also, just because our current president is trying to make decisions based on Christian morality, it does not mean he is doing things the way he is supposed to be doing them. Far from it. He is completely breaking from the tradition and system of the founding fathers.

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01J3
http://www.narth.com/docs/RationaleBasisFinal0405.pdf
http://www.acpeds.org/?CONTEXT=art&cat=22&art=50

do a search on google for "research on homosexual parenting" the evidence supports overwhelmingly the oposite of what you claim.

[edweird]

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01J3
http://www.narth.com/docs/RationaleBasisFinal0405.pdf
http://www.acpeds.org/?CONTEXT=art&cat=22&art=50

do a search on google for "research on homosexual parenting" the evidence supports overwhelmingly the oposite of what you claim.


Oh common lets consider your sources:

FRC.org "defending family, faith and freedom"
heck just read the wiki on this "Christian conservative non-profit think tank and lobbying organization." @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Research_Council

Its a christian funded lobbying organization, need I bring up trust issues with political lobbys? Or can we just consider this a dead horse right from the gate?

Narth.com study link:

Right of the top... damn dude read this stuff before you hang your arguement with it...
Editorial Note:
Most of this research review of empirical evidence applies to public policy regarding child custody decisions, adoption, and foster parenting of children, even though it was specifically prepared to defend the Arkansas regulation prohibiting the issuance of foster parent licenses to homes in which there is any adult involved in homosexual behavior. The attorney assigned to defend the Arkansas regulation, Kathy Hall, curiously made motions in court to exclude all scientific evidence regarding the higher frequency of domestic violence, pedophilia, and sexual disease transmission by homosexual adults to children compared to married couples to children, which undermined her own case. So Kathy Hall instructed Professor Rekers not to review research in those areas.

So its skewed right from the get-go... Another dead horse?

American College of Pediatricians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_College_of_Pediatricians states that ACPeds.org is a social conservative organization as well... [rule of thumb... rigid agenda = bad science]
the wiki also states:

ACPeds has spoken out on a number political issues. These statements include, but are not limited too, condemnation of :

* Same-Sex Marriage
* LGBT Parenting
* Contraception other than sexual abstinence (including Emergency contraception)
* Reproductive rights

As a general guideline, do not accept anything issued from organizations with rigid agendas as "gospel". They are funded by organizations that are only intersted in promoting their ideas, and deviation from that idea (even due to overwealming fact) will lead to the end of said funding. The golden rule when you see studies like this, is consider the source of the studies funding; only then can you get to the truth of the matter.

Next time read your links first... this round was as easier to club to death than a baby seal.

[tropical_fishy]

Oh common lets consider your sources:

FRC.org "defending family, faith and freedom"
heck just read the wiki on this "Christian conservative non-profit think tank and lobbying organization." @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Research_Council

Its a christian funded lobbying organization, need I bring up trust issues with political lobbys? Or can we just consider this a dead horse right from the gate?

Narth.com study link:

Right of the top... damn dude read this stuff before you hang your arguement with it...
Editorial Note:
Most of this research review of empirical evidence applies to public policy regarding child custody decisions, adoption, and foster parenting of children, even though it was specifically prepared to defend the Arkansas regulation prohibiting the issuance of foster parent licenses to homes in which there is any adult involved in homosexual behavior. The attorney assigned to defend the Arkansas regulation, Kathy Hall, curiously made motions in court to exclude all scientific evidence regarding the higher frequency of domestic violence, pedophilia, and sexual disease transmission by homosexual adults to children compared to married couples to children, which undermined her own case. So Kathy Hall instructed Professor Rekers not to review research in those areas.

So its skewed right from the get-go... Another dead horse?

American College of Pediatricians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_College_of_Pediatricians states that ACPeds.org is a social conservative organization as well... [rule of thumb... rigid agenda = bad science]
the wiki also states:

ACPeds has spoken out on a number political issues. These statements include, but are not limited too, condemnation of :

* Same-Sex Marriage
* LGBT Parenting
* Contraception other than sexual abstinence (including Emergency contraception)
* Reproductive rights

As a general guideline, do not accept anything issued from organizations with rigid agendas as "gospel". They are funded by organizations that are only intersted in promoting their ideas, and deviation from that idea (even due to overwealming fact) will lead to the end of said funding. The golden rule when you see studies like this, is consider the source of the studies funding; only then can you get to the truth of the matter.

Next time read your links first... this round was as easier to club to death than a baby seal.


It is obvious, since straight, Christian parents will only raise white bread, WASPy, properly masculine and feminine, straight children, that gay people will only raise flambuoyant, athiestic, closed-minded GLBT children, who are bent on destroying and corrupting the United States and its theological roots.

PS: bornl33t-- In the world of up-to-date medical, sociological, and psychological research, google is not your friend. Try peer-reviewed journals, or textbooks.

[billybob_81067]

Oh common lets consider your sources:


At least he has sources... I don't see anyone putting up sources for your side of the argument, (although I'm sure there will be here shortly). Ha-ha I'm making you do research! :p

[warbeak2099]

bornl33t, you're sources are not scientific nor are they objective. They are therefore not valid. Only empirical research can provide objective and truthful findings. Your incredibly biased sources do not use the empirical method to come to their findings. Instead they draw them from thin air, relying on emotion and opinion. Hardly accurate.

http://hem.passagen.se/nicb/threat.htm

That is written by a doctor. A person who has done research and applied the scientific study to his work. Not someone who is bringing religion into a matter in which it has no place. We are simply trying to find out whether or not homosexuality has ever had a negative effect on society. It has not. It has never been scientifically proven. As I said before, children raised by homosexuals have been proven to grow up no less functional or well off than children raised by straight parents.

I have read through countless journal articles that would bore you to death since it appears you like to just read about fantastical ideas that have never been tested instead of actually doing the work to find something out. That is lazy and ignorant. Not one of the anti-gay, biased organizations that you cited have ever done a credible, empirical study, nor do they know what the word "empirical" means.

EDIT: Also read this. This is the kind of person who does "studies" that find homosexuality as a threat to society:

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron.html

I also doubt you will read through Dr. Berggren's entire article. Therefore, here is the single most important part of it:

Argument #3: "Homosexuals pose a threat to children"

"I have known few homosexuals who did not practice their tendencies. Such people are sinning against God and will lead to the ultimate destruction of the family and our nation. I am unalterably opposed to such things, and will do everything I can to restrict the freedom of these people to spread their contagious infection to the youth of our nation." - Pat Robertson, May 24, 1994 letter

This argument is based on several misunderstandings: that homosexuals are more prone to molest children and that it is possible to recruit children into homosexuality and that homosexuals carry out such acts of recruitment.

On the issue of molestation, this is what Dr. Gregory M. Herek at the Psychology Department of the University of California at Davis has to say: "The empirical research on adult sexual orientation and molestation of children does not show that gay men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to suggest that molestations of children by adult homosexual men never occur. They do. But molesting children has nothing to do with whether a man is heterosexual or homosexual." For more on what Dr. Herek has to say, including an exposition of the false claims of right-wing favorite Paul Cameron (ousted from the APA), click here (http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html).

On the issue of recruitment, this idea entails two theories: (i) that homosexuality can be induced by conscious acts, and (ii) that homosexuals wish to and do recruit. As for the first theory, this is clearly at odds with almost all expertise. Let me offer two arguments as to why it is false. First, almost all the research in psychology and biology indicate that homosexuality is a part of a person's inner personality, just like heterosexuality, which is not the result of conscious acts (see The American Psychological Association (http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/orient.html), The American Psychiatric Association (http://www.thebody.com/apa/apafacts.html), and the site The Gay Gene (http://members.aol.com/gaygene/index.htm), which documents the biological findings of a genetical component to homosexuality). And if this is so, it is not possible to recruit. Second, an overwhelming majority of homosexuals surveyed by The Advocate (over 90 %) a few years ago stated that they did not choose to become homosexuals. I know, for one, that I did not choose to be gay, nor did anyone act consciously to make me gay, and all my gay friends have the same experience.

As for the second theory, that homosexuals wish to and do recruit, this is without any basis. First of all, as has just been argued, homosexuals would have to know how to make someone gay, if they were to engage in attempts to recruit. Yet I do not think anyone can safely say that they know how to determine the sexual orientation of someone. Parents, that spend much more time with their kids than anyone else, do not possess such knowledge, presumably, since straight parents often have gay kids. Traits like sexual orientation are very complexly determined, and homosexuals in general do not think that it is possible to change a person's sexual orientation, period, and if so, that no one really knows how to do it. (On the so-called ex-gay movement, see several articles on my homo page (http://hem.passagen.se/nicb/homo.htm) under the heading "Is It Possible to Change from Gay to Straight?")

Furthermore, why would homosexuals be interested in recruiting youngsters when, clearly, each new generation brings with it gays and lesbians quite spontaneously? And why is it assumed that gays and lesbians want everyone else to share their sexual orientation?

It is often said that homosexuals wish to portray homosexuality in an attractive manner in the media and in the schools in order to attract young, impressionable children. This accusation is incorrect, for the reason that almost all homosexuals do not think it possible to influence the sexual orientation of a youngster by means of movies, articles, or factual classroom information. Even if that were the case, the heterosexual lifestyle is clearly so predominant in society (which heterosexuals most often do not even reflect upon), that the impressions taken by youngster must be much stronger from that side than from the side of homosexuality. As President Weinberg of The American Psychiatric Association stated in 1977: "A parent's fear that their child will be recruited at school or elsewhere is without scientific foundation".

Rather, the information about homosexuality in media and schools is desired by gays and lesbians solely to help kids who feel attracted to kids of their own sex to accept those unchangeable feelings. The sole purpose is to make these kids feel better about who they are, because most of us who grew up with homosexual feelings felt quite lonely and scared of society's reaction. Good information can help these kids to grow up to be healthy and self-confident. This must be considered especially important, since gay and lesbian teens are two to three times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers and account for up to 30% of all completed suicides among teens - in 1989, suicide was the leading cause of death among gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered youth (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1989). It should be obvious that honest information, positive role models, support from well informed teachers, counselors and friends could be immensely helpful to a teenager who is struggling to come to terms with his or her sexual orientation.

And, in addition to this, the argument presupposes that there are solid reasons to think homosexuality harmful in the first place. As we shall see in this essay, there are no such reasons, and hence, even if homosexuals did recruit (which they do not), this could hardly be considered a bad thing, aside, possibly, from the negative attitudes that one has to endure as a homosexuals, not the least from condemning Christians and conservatives.

But what if it were the case that there was a larger proportion of homosexuals than heterosexuals who molested children, for instance (which is not the case)? Of what use is that information? Consider if it was found that the proportion of heterosexuals who molested children was higher than that of homosexuals, what conclusion would be drawn from that information? Should we therefore make life as hard as possible for all heterosexuals (perhaps on the belief that they would become homosexuals, and hence less prone to molest kids, through that type of treatment)? Clearly, such ideas seem bizarre and at odds with basic notions of justice: both because all would be punished for the activities of a minority (the molesters) and because the actions are probably counterproductive (repressed molesters are probably more prone to molest). And we must not forget that underlying this idea is the erroneous theory than one can consciously change the sexual orientation of people.

To conclude, then, the claim that homosexuals pose a threat to children is defaming and without basis. Homosexuals, just like heterosexuals, generally love and care for children and wish them only to lead good, rewarding, and honest lives.

[edweird]

Ha-ha I'm making you do research! :p

Nah I think warbeak2099 has this one licked... and LGBT Parenting is not the pulpet that I normally preach from, so I will just handle the lightwork of calling out lobbys and special interest groups when presented them, and let the pros handle the out of feild research.

[SCpoloRicker]

This thread needs more Joseph Campbell.

http://ias.berkeley.edu/orias/graphics/campbell.gif

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/014019441X.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_AA240_SH20_OU01_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

http://www.mythsf.org/images/Campbell4.jpg

[Dark Side]

Institute natural selection for the Human race.

[billybob_81067]

I know, for one, that I did not choose to be gay, nor did anyone act consciously to make me gay, and all my gay friends have the same experience.




Nah I think warbeak2099 has this one licked...

Yeah I'd say he's got it licked alright..... :spit_take

[PumpPlayer]

I'd go back in time and buy myself a Wii so that I could play it instead of reading this thread...

:p

[warbeak2099]

Yeah I'd say he's got it licked alright..... :spit_take

Hey hey hey lol, that's what I get for not using quotes.

[NotKai]

but why? who cares? If this is the only life I am ever going to have, why not live it for yourself and not waste it on others? duty as a human being? why is it my duty? because you said so?


I know that you are playing devil's advocate, but actually, yeah. Don't live your life for anyone but yourself. Selfishness is the key to happiness.

[tropical_fishy]

I know that you are playing devil's advocate, but actually, yeah. Don't live your life for anyone but yourself. Selfishness is the key to happiness.


Are we talking Randian selfishness, or true selfishness?

[Lohman446]

Ethical hedonism anyone :)

[bornl33t]

:rofl: well I guess this will be the argument our children's children will wage huh? Because I don't have the time or the support group you do to pull apart that post and it's links.








Something about this sounds fishy but I can't put my finger on it...

[kosmo]

Im guessing its fishy sounding fishy, thats her m.o.

[warbeak2099]

Ethical hedonism anyone :)

I think it's more of the lifestyle advocated in the Book of Job. Basically the idea of living your life to the fullest today instead of worrying about tomorrow. You know, eat, drink, and be merry. It still leaves room for being a good person. My favorite philosophy in any case.

[slade]

I think it's more of the lifestyle advocated in the Book of Job. Basically the idea of living your life to the fullest today instead of worrying about tomorrow. You know, eat, drink, and be merry. It still leaves room for being a good person. My favorite philosophy in any case.
how was the book of Job saying that you should live for the moment and not worry about the future?

[NotKai]

Are we talking Randian selfishness, or true selfishness?


Ayn Rand was a fox, but she was too considerate of others.

[SCpoloRicker]

Ayn Rand was a fox, but she was too considerate of others.

Liberal Arts student, burn him!!1

[tropical_fishy]

I think it's more of the lifestyle advocated in the Book of Job. Basically the idea of living your life to the fullest today instead of worrying about tomorrow. You know, eat, drink, and be merry. It still leaves room for being a good person. My favorite philosophy in any case.


My Bible-study may be rusty, but from what I remember, Job was the one that God put through absolute torture just because he could... isn't it a bet with Satan or something, to see if Job truly loved God?I could be wrong, it's been a while since I've read the Bible.

[slade]

My Bible-study may be rusty, but from what I remember, Job was the one that God put through absolute torture just because he could... isn't it a bet with Satan or something, to see if Job truly loved God?I could be wrong, it's been a while since I've read the Bible.
essentially Job was the best and most righteous man on earth, God bragged about him, satan asked if Job would still act the same if god took everything from him, so God took everything from Job.

satan is just an angel, not the christian devil.

the purpose of the book of Job is essentially to explain that bad things can happen to good people who do not err.