StevenSeagal

Okay, here is a direct quote from Dawkins:

If you are describing his argument correctly, Richard Dawkins clearly does not understand a key aspect of Christianity: Christians are not bound by the old testament law. Christians really only have one law: love thy neighbour. If Dawkins doesn't understand this, it brings the whole bookinto question. Dawkins anticipates that very question and goes on to decipher the New Testament in similar manner, again making the point that today's interpretation of even the New Testament is selective, and rarely literal. The question is if, as most religious people advocate, morality is supposedly absent without religion, on what basis do we choose the bits of morality that suit us out of the Bible (or the Koran, as well)? As for "Love thy neighbor": he also makes a point that the historical context of this command was specifically for the jewish people: to love one another- "love another jew". i.e.Tribalism. He claims the command, at the time it was written, did not apply to also love non believers, although in modern times that has come to be the accepted interpretation of it.

The US shares some of the same issues that China does, but here you're a lot less likely to be executed or imprisoned for voicing descent. I voiced descent on a climb once. Everyone called me a pussy for turning around and threatened to imprison me in the nearest crevasse for a slow execution. Well I'm guessing you aren't posting from inside a crevasse. His head might be.

There's no content on those sites. Do you know any sites where people go to argue politics and religion?

It was amoral atheists who infected the world with this and other genocides, some of whom *were* raised Christian (or Jewish in the case of Stalinist Russia), but hardly were practicing believers, but go on and delude yourself. I'd like to see far more good people of faith than faithless atheists who arrogantly say "fuck j****". No, fuck you. i'll grant you that stalin and mao were aethists and monsters, but history has a much longer list of moses and jesus-lovers who were every bit as bad; folks who sincerely ascribe themselves to a hocus-pocus religion have wrecked more havoc on this earth than the enlightened few who have cast aside the boogeymen of their primitive ancestors. the bottom line is to fear anyone who thinks they have the whole world figured out for themselves and everybody else in it - aetheistic, aggressive communism was a relgion in that sense. most christians seem incapable of seperating their belief in the big-guy in the bathrobe from the corollary belief that, being part of the faithful, they then have the right to tell me how to live my life. i'm an apathetic aestheist - the universe means nothing more than what i choose it to mean, there is no great calling, and i don't give a shit what you believe in or how you live you're life, just leave me the fuck alone about it. Richard Dawkins, in his book "The God Delusion", makes a very strong argument that, while Stalin for example was likely an atheist, atheism itself was not the motivation for the atrocities committed, nor for his lack of morals. Simultaneously, he makes an even stronger argument that even devout Christians do not actually obtain their morals from the Bible: since the old testament explicitly calls for such things as killing someone who works on sundays, death for adultery, on and on- things that modern Christians have come to reject- clearly if humans can pick and choose which parts of the Bible to adhere to, there must be some other basis for morality acting in advance. The point being, that ascribing "lack of morals" as an intrinsic characteristic of atheists, on the basis that religious scriptures provide that for you, is grossly inaccurate. Organized religion and faith in a higher being is not paramount to sound moral judgment.

Whatever. How about growing some skin, you hypersensitive, histrionic drama queen.

Do you have a graph or a flow chart you could use to explain this further?

Bug- do not read this thread!

OMG! :lmao: :lmao: That's the funniest thing you've written so far. You mean, you actually trust that the GOVERNMENT WILL PROTECT US from pollution?!?!? Isn't that socialism? I thought in the free market society we should rely on industries to self regulate and keep our best interests at hand? What's funniest of all is that Bush has systematically restructured the EPA and the interior department and filled up those agencies with energy industry lobbyists and suck ups. Maybe that explains your faith in big daddy Gov't EPA to protect us. It is indeed a question, but one which people like you are happy to dismiss because "experts" hired by the energy industries single handedly "debunked" decades of research and observations, and have effectively turned science into an opinion-based forum where no one's expertise counts for anything because there "must" be a political agenda behind findings that you don't like. There's still lots of questions about man made climate change, but the probabilities and evidence are pointing strongly in favor of it at this time. I think it's obvious that we are also in a natural upswing in temperatures, but there's more to the story than that, despite what "El Rushbo" spoonfeeds you each morning with your Cheerios, sunshine. Back to the original point you asked starting this thread: you implicitly derided people for planning to shut off their lights for one hour- something that won't effect you one bit and in which you are not required to participate. I assume you scoff at individual efforts at conservation because in your mind, if you can't see the result in numbers or visuals, then there must obviously be no benefit in it, right? Think about that and try again, knuckle dragger.

So its about your Robin hood Socialist agenda to spread the wealth. Now we know what you are talking about. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/01/30/harper-kyoto.html If you enjoy getting boned up the ass with high energy prices by companies that are poisoning the air you breathe and the water you drink, and that which your kids will consume in the future, all because you see sensible regulation of polluting industries as "socialism", then so be it. Your statement above about resources for the future is as lacking in value and sincerity as your brain is lacking in synapses. Dumbass.

Okay! So it IS about profits! Thanks for confirming what we already knew.

Except that the same people that have you convinced that it is so preposterous that human caused pollutants could affect the climate (we've already caused proven, drastically negative effects to the quality of many air, water and ecosystems) are also fighting emissions regulations tooth and nail at every turn. They now just use global warming as an efficient stall tactic. The actions being proposed that would theoretically curb global warming are largely things that we should be doing anyway and are being stifled by energy industries concerned with maximizing profits. Lie in bed with them if you like, dumbass.

I'm doing more than that. I'm cutting the outside hose and lighting the gas line to "off gas" a little. Here's my vision for my neighborhood: Escape from LA? Blade Runner? I'm clueless, but I'd like to rent it if it's a full-length film. Blade Runner

Settle down guys. Cheney has a right to make a living just like the rest of us. If you don't like it, you could start your own oil services company, you know.

Weren't you arguing sometime last summer that citing one hot summer in the data record doesn't mean anything because it has to do with long term trends? Actually no, it couldn't have been you because you don't think that far into things before opening your pie hole. apparently you didn't read that second article I posted our you wouldn't have opened your pie whole. All about long term trends. You mean the one written by an energy company shill? What a paradox huh? The polluters are in the position to dictate energy and emissions standards. Considering the website is "junkscience.com", we need read no further- more rapture readyist flat earth propaganda from those who want to waste resources at will since baby jesus is coming to destroy this wretched place next week.

I'm doing more than that. I'm cutting the outside hose and lighting the gas line to "off gas" a little. Here's my vision for my neighborhood: Ue1S3FvKWxo

Weren't you arguing sometime last summer that citing one hot summer in the data record doesn't mean anything because it has to do with long term trends? Actually no, it couldn't have been you because you don't think that far into things before opening your pie hole.

It sure won't! In fact, just to show those libs, for that hour, I'm planning to turn on every light, water faucet, and appliance in my house, turn the heat up to 90, leave all the doors open and go jump in my Hummer and take a 100 mile drive in one hour. Then I'm going to change my oil in my driveway and let it leak into the catch basins marked with fish symbols. I'll finish up by burning a pile of tires in the back yard.

Please stop with the facts. I need more hyperbole. I'm not feeling it.

Again no question at all. You clearly indicate that you believe Bush never hosted the Taliban. Turns out you were correct. Your reply never suggests that you were unfamiliar with the Taliban's US visit. Matt's post suggesting you Google it clearly suggests that your reply was factually incorrect and that you are clueless about the visit. You're all clueless. I have this all figured out with my super secret access to the CIA!

On second thought, even if Bush had no connection, it apparently wouldn't be the first time the Bush family has been involved financially with despots: http://h2-pv.us/Bush-Hitler/Bush-Hitler.html

Fair enough...although I don't buy the notion that we didn't really understand what the Taliban were all about until 9/11. On that note, should we still try again to work with the Iranians in a productive manner? Finally, I'd say Cheney to this day remains a businessman first and foremost.

Has anyone seen this funny video? yk5TQFw-1E8

Rip it up!!!

How is "go search Google" misleading? Is there a "Google-Libturd version 2.0" that he was sending you to that would give you inaccurate libturd propaganda passing as "news"?