found this article interesting.
what do you guys think?
it seems to be opposed topretty much everything i've read so far.. .
Teejay, I'm still around. I just didn't have much to add. Your point about tax money being used for foreign aid is a good one. Personally I don't believe that any of the money I earn should go to anybody else without my permission, but voicing such a view usually gets one labelled a fascist. Not that I'm afraid of being falsely labelled, just had nothing to add to the subject under discussion.
--
Those who can induce you to believe absurdities can induce you to commit attrocities - Voltaire
hey guys.
i got an idea as to why there is the same bitterness by many/not all, on this board twards christians like there is to dubs.
you feel you have found it to be a crock just as the borg is and it makes you madder than crap to see people duped a second time.
LittleToe,
Anyone want to define truth or fact?
From dictionary.com (edited for clarity)
truth:
Conformity to fact or actuality.
A statement proven to be or accepted as true
fact:
Knowledge or information based on real occurrences
Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed
A real occurrence; an event
To my mind it takes as much faith to be an atheist as it does a believer.
In your mind perhaps, but not in reality. If atheists have as much faith as believers, then are there any people without faith, or with less faith? If so, what do they believe? (If not, of course, faith becomes trivial and irrelevant.)
Do Muslims have less faith than Christians? Clearly not. Is there then any way to distinguish between what Muslims believe and what Christians believe? Is it a battle of who has the strongest faith, or should evidence come into it somewhere?
--
Those who can induce you to believe absurdities can induce you to commit attrocities - Voltaire
found this article interesting.
what do you guys think?
it seems to be opposed topretty much everything i've read so far.. .
UR,
Accidentally benefitting from someone else's misfortune does not oblige me to repay them in any way. It certainly does not oblige me to compensate their descendants.
--
Those who can induce you to believe absurdities can induce you to commit attrocities - Voltaire
found this article interesting.
what do you guys think?
it seems to be opposed topretty much everything i've read so far.. .
LDH,
Not at all. What I'm saying is, if you're going to pay reparations for one group, you have to pay it for all.
Which was my point. Everyone's ancestors have at some time been victims and everyone's ancestors have at some time been perpetrators of atrocities. The idea of paying reparations to any group quickly becomes ridiculous.
Funky ,If it wasn't for slavery, those people wouldn't exist.This is such a foolish argument!
I don't think so. It's an unusual one, granted, but I think it has merit. If these people's ancestors had remained in Africa, their lives would have been very different, possibly worse than in America. They would have met different people, done different things. They would have had different descendants. The people to whom the reparations would be paid would not exist without slavery. It's difficult to argue that they should be compensated for something which benefitted them.
If it wasn't for the potato famine, most Irish Americans wouldn't be here either!
I know, and Ireland would be horrendously overpopulated and probably still a third world country. I almost certainly wouldn't exist. The famine was a terrible thing but not without its benefits in the long run.
--
Those who can induce you to believe absurdities can induce you to commit attrocities - Voltaire
found this article interesting.
what do you guys think?
it seems to be opposed topretty much everything i've read so far.. .
The question is, if blacks who were never slaves don't deserve any money, why do the great grandchildren of those plantation owners deserve to be rich? What did they do? You mention 'blacks who were never slaves.' What about 'whites who were never plantation owners?' Do they just get to keep all of that money?
Are you saying that I am to be held responsible for every action committed by one of my ancestors which would nowadays be considered a crime, and that I am to be given reparations for every such action that was committed against my ancestors? How far back in time should we go? What if you are a white American but your ancestors arrived in America after slavery had been abolished and they never made a single penny from the slave trade. Will they also have their tax money taken from them to support black Americans whose ancestors also arrived after the abolition of slavery? What level of absurdity does it have to go to?
--
Those who can induce you to believe absurdities can induce you to commit attrocities - Voltaire
found this article interesting.
what do you guys think?
it seems to be opposed topretty much everything i've read so far.. .
Not at all true. Make no mistake, the vast majority of black people in America are indeed victems of slavery. Less so with every generation, provided civilization moves forward, not backwards, but yes, still very much "victims".
If it wasn't for slavery, those people wouldn't exist. If they are victims, then so am I. I want reparations for the many times Ireland has been invaded, so the English, French and Scandinavians here had better cough up. Especially the English.
--
Those who can induce you to believe absurdities can induce you to commit attrocities - Voltaire
found this article interesting.
what do you guys think?
it seems to be opposed topretty much everything i've read so far.. .
Why should people who never endorsed slavery pay "reparations" to people who were never victims of it?
--
Those who can induce you to believe absurdities can induce you to commit attrocities - Voltaire
science musings.
the new cosmology in tragedy's wake .
by chet raymo, 9/18/2001 .
OK, found it. http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/261/science/The_new_cosmology_in_tragedy_s_wake+.shtml
--
Those who can induce you to believe absurdities can induce you to commit attrocities - Voltaire
science musings.
the new cosmology in tragedy's wake .
by chet raymo, 9/18/2001 .
Excellent article. If only they'd listen. Have you got a direct link for that or am I just going to have to trawl through the Boston Globe site?
--
Those who can induce you to believe absurdities can induce you to commit attrocities - Voltaire
...suffering was not so bad.
his "perfection" and understanding of the situation would certainly have mitigated his suffering.. his death was not really death, not in any meaningful sense.
it was a 15 second nap, using bible reasoning.
Thus, God's Truthfulness would also be vindicated. God does not lie and no lie has foundation. It cannot prove to be Life, only death.
You can't just define everything God says as truth. God told Adam that when he ate from the tree of knowledge he would die. (Gen 2:17)The serpent told Eve that when she ate from it, she would not die, but be like God, knowing good and bad. (Gen 3:4) When they ate from it, they did not die but had their eyes opened (Gen 3:7)
It was only later when God was in the garden for his afternoon stroll (Gen 3:8) that he discovered what had happened. Even then Adam and Eve did not die. First God punished the serpent by removing its legs (Gen 3:14) and making it unpopular with humans (Gen 3:15). (Not the first prophecy in the bible, merely a "just so" story.) Then he heaped various hardships on the man and the woman (Gen 3:16-19)
Finally, and I'm going to quote this, in Genesis 3:22 God says:
""Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil, he must not be allowed to stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." To prevent this, God threw them out of the garden (Gen 3:23) and put an armed guard at the entrance (Gen 3:24)
So, to summarise, God said they'd die and they didn't. The serpent said they would become like God, knowing good from evil, and they did. When they disobeyed and God's deception was discovered, he decided to torture and kill them and all their descendants. That he later decided to torture and kill his "only-begotten son" as some sort of sick "ransom" hardly excuses his actions, especially when even 2000 years after the ransom was paid, the suffering and death continue.
--
Those who can induce you to believe absurdities can induce you to commit attrocities - Voltaire
