Merrikans, what do you think of Ron Paul?

[Pirschjaeger]

Personally I like him.

Remember that little piece of paper that used to mean something? Paul wants to use it to rule the states.

Now there's an idea. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Fritz

[I_KG100_Prien]

Who?

Meaning:

I know who the guy is, and see him as being another Ross Perot. A "candidate" that is going to take votes away from the serious contenders.

[Pirschjaeger]

When you say serious contenders, do you mean serious as in having gaols or do you mean serious as in who's got the best chance?

I've been watching his interviews on the net for a while. He's the only one that actually says something. He's the only one that makes any sense.

Hillary is simply a Bush in drag. Obama's not to bad. McCain is just down right sneaky looking. So far, from what I've seen, you guys get to choose from assorted cheerleaders or someone who actually wants to follow rules.

Fritz

[I_KG100_Prien]

By serious I mean the ones that actually have a chance of being elected into office.

I try to not get too involved in political discussions based on my belief that people are very deeply set in their opinions and more often than not it fails to stay civil.

But one part of my political views that I will share is something that my father passed along to me when it comes to voting for candidates.... Which is a phrase we are all familiar with..

When faced with evils, one must pick the lesser. When translated over to our political process-

If you don't like any of the candidates, pick the one that you thinks will do the least amount of damage to the country. (once again, based on your opinion and what issues concern you the most). Take a good look on the stances, and problem solutions that are on the table from each candidate, whichever one fits you the most- go with.

Don't throw your vote away on someone who doesn't have a snow-balls chance in a hot, sweltering h-e-l-l.

So, thats what I do. However, I will point out that I wouldn't vote for Hillary if you put a gun to my head and threatened to have me sodomized by a horse. (and no, it's not because she's a woman...)

[BrewsterPilot]

Bah, I thinks US politics is full of Bullshiite. I should know, I live here.

If I had the ability to vote, I'd vote democrat. Be sure.

[Tater-SW-]

Clearly you don't actually pay taxes, brewster pilot.

I think Ron Paul will NOT be president, that's my prediction. Be sure.

Prien is spot on regarding our system The time for voting your conscience at all costs is in the primary election. Once it's down to 2 (and yes, it's TWO, regardless of how many 2% vote getter spoilers there might be), you vote for who you disagree with the least.

[Airmail109]

OBAMA FTW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[mortoma]

The one thing I can't understand is how we are letting that Democrat John McCain win the Republican nomination!! I am totally out of politics for the rest of my life I'm so disgusted by people voting for that scumbag.
I will no longer vote for the rest of my life and am turning my back on the Republican party.

That good for nothing, pro-illegal alien jerk is no better than Hillary. And he has voted for all the major anti-gun legislation that has come along. My home state senator, Richard Lugar, is almost as bad as he is. A virtual Democrat in Republican clothing.

[mortoma]

Originally posted by BrewsterPilot:
Bah, I thinks US politics is full of Bullshiite. I should know, I live here.

If I had the ability to vote, I'd vote democrat. Be sure. Hell, you can vote, the illegal mexiscums vote all the time.

[I_KG100_Prien]

Originally posted by mortoma:
The one thing I can't understand is how we are letting that Democrat John McCain win the Republican nomination!! I am totally out of politics for the rest of my life I'm so disgusted by people voting for that scumbag.
I will no longer vote for the rest of my life and am turning my back on the Republican party.

That good for nothing, pro-illegal alien jerk is no better than Hillary. And he has voted for all the major anti-gun legislation that has come along. My home state senator, Richard Lugar, is almost as bad as he is. A virtual Democrat in Republican clothing.

Breaking my own rule here a little but -eh it's the interweb and sticks 'n stones.

I don't think we really have to worry about McCain being elected. I don't think America is willing to have another Republican in the White House this next term. The voters made that clear when the Democrats took over Congress.

Personally I think Obama will probably get elected. This may be an odd stance, but I would like to see it because I want to watch how he goes about handling the current big issues when he's not in a position to just TALK about it, but actually can attempt to DO something.

But.. I 'spose that could go for any of the candidates that make it past the primaries. Though, if it comes down to Hillary and McCain-- definatly going to vote McCain.

[Korolov1986]

In this election, none of the "front runners" have views that I agree with. It feels like deciding whether to slice off your left nut or your right nut.

[Ob.Emann]

I'm quite fond of him.

Sure, I would have liked it if the American public at large had the brains to elect him...but alas, last Tuesday the electorate made sure that this November we'll get to choose between cancer and AIDS for the coveted office of Grand Emperor.

[PriK]

There are some people cut out for politics as a second career (i.e. the Schwarzzeneger) and other's who really just aren't.

I don't think it makes me a biggot to say I don't believe Ru Paul is one of them or the type of person to represent a state let alone a country, well maybe California but even that's pushing it. I don't think America is quite ready for that kind of president yet but who am I to say?

[leitmotiv]

I wanted Guiliani, but I am feeling like throwing the dice and voting for Bam Bam. If Hils had massive ballocks like Maggie Thatcher, I'd vote for her, but she is a Stepford Wife---lets Billiousness do all the heavy lifting. Another eight years of Bill is unpalatable beyond belief. McCain is a certified jerk, unfortunately.

[MEGILE]

The guy recently said, Evolution is "just a theory"... the guys a doctor. Sounds like pandering to the ignorant evangelicals to me.

Can't blame him really.

Hillary contradicts herself too many times in the space of 30 seconds. I saw a recent debate where she just would NOT commit to a view on immigration... again though, who can blame her I suppose, she needs the votes.

I like Kucinich's wife, so I'm voting for him.

[leitmotiv]

Concur 100% re H. Her convictions are eminently negotiable. She and Bill cleverly "triangulated" the blacks to get the Latino vote when the blacks had been their most loyal constituency. They are lower to the ground than a gerbil's belly.

[WOLFMondo]

Originally posted by Megile:
The guy recently said, Evolution is "just a theory"... the guys a doctor. Sounds like pandering to the ignorant evangelicals to me.


Oh noes. Another Bush.

[MEGILE]

Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Bush.

Wrong thread.

See babes and cheerleaders.

[Pirschjaeger]

Originally posted by Megile:
The guy recently said, Evolution is "just a theory"... the guys a doctor. Sounds like pandering to the ignorant evangelicals to me.


He's the same guy that says people should govern themselves within the regulations of the constitution.

The US is a big country with various societies and cultures. If a few electronically enhanced Amish want to teach ID in their schools, why not let them. It is those people who will suffer in the end. I seriously doubt it would get enough support, even in their own areas.

The constitution starts out with "We, the people" not "We the nation". There's a big difference and I think the founding fathers took the size of the country into consideration. If you are talking about Luxemburg or Malta, it's a totally different case.

People should be allowed to govern themselves. People are not created equally no do they think equally. Demographics comes into play when discussing the population of a large country.

Ron Paul, by not choosing sides in the debate, is simply doing what he says a president should do. It is not up to the president to make decisions for the people. That's congress's job. The president should take his orders from congress and congress from the people.

Hence; We the people....

You guys should be looking a the big picture rather than focusing on little insignificant details. The details are what certain forms of government want you to look at. I love watching a debate where Paul is allowed (rare) because he leaves the other candidates speechless and the crowd cheering. He seems to be the people's champion and the constitution's defender.

He makes a poor businessman. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Fritz

[arthursmedley]

Wow; your actually having a political discussion here.
Rather like playing pass-the-parcel with plutonium on these boards!

You guys will be electing the next leader of the free world in November, right?
As a european and a member of the above world; can I have a vote too, please?

p.s.
serious question for Mortoma; note your views on McCain, would you consider Nixon a republican nowadays?

best regards

[leitmotiv]

Ha, that's a good one. Among classic American conservatives Nixon received a bad name because he increased spending in LBJ's "Great Society," which was detested by them, but his destruction by the Left made him a martyr. McCain's violent advocacy of Bush's amnesty program for illegal aliens last year put him beyond the pale of conservatives---he smashed many toes, and really went over the top with his characterizations of those who were against the plan. I wager this might cost him the election because the conservatives might stay home on election day. Only the prospect of Hillary will likely rally the troops to vote for him. I was for him in 2000, but last year put me off him completely. I'll vote for Obama. If its Hillary, I might vote for McCain, but I'll be holding my nose---as usual when it comes to Presidential elections.

[Pirschjaeger]

I think we can do this without fighting. I've wanted to discuss this topic for a long time but the mods are fairly strict when it comes to American politics. I hope no one screws up this thread.

I'm a european too but recently I've found American politics to be quite interesting. This thread, at least in theory, should give me a chance to learn a lot more.

Fritz

[Pirschjaeger]

From my understanding of what was said in a Paul interview, he claimed that the immigration issue (illegal aliens) was brought on by socialistic tendancies. He says it's better to have people look after themselves rather than have people be dependent on the state. He blames the state welfare for the border jumpers claiming that the welfare is an incentive.

What do you guys think?

Fritz

[Worf101]

As a registered Independent, I've listened to all the candidates as much as I possibly could. There are many things that Ron Paul espouses that I can get behind. I personally think that he's "honest". By that I mean he's honest enough to say what he means knowing full well that that's not how you get elected to dog catcher let alone President in this country.

I loved his going toe to toe with Rudy when the latter was trying to "wave the bloody shirt" of 911 and ride that to the White House. Of all the candidates I found Rudy to be the most distasteful. Why? Because I lived through his reign as the "Sheriff of Notingham" or "King of Dulac" when he was Mayor of New York City. People forget that, prior to 911, his reign was so polorizing and inflamatory that they changed the laws of New City to prevent him from running again.

Yeah he cleaned up the streets, yeah he got rid of the porno houses on 42nd Street and brought Disney to Downtown, but he also loosed the New York City Police Department on certain populations of the and gave them Gestapo like powers to terrorize and kill almost with impugnity. He is one person I will not and do not miss. Thank god his candidacy is done.

Da Worfster

[leitmotiv]

The consensus among outraged conservatives is that the open border was (1) a sop to Mexico because the North American Free Trade Agreement put huge numbers of Mexican agricultural workers out of work in Mexico, and (2) a favor to big business because it temporarily rendered collective bargaining impossible because the unions were undermined by the illegal immigrants who, initially, took the worst jobs at lower wages than Americans. Of course, this was illusory because the illegals wanted to move up, not be stuck at the bottom. Was a huge fillip to the service industry and to rich people who thought hiring illegals for domestic help was great (until they stole valuables and split). The policy was INSANE. America has now taken on Mexico's illiterate peasantry, and a huge number of criminals. We cannot afford either. Everybody lost in the deal. There was an instructive example in Greeley, Colorado, of the falseness of the claim the illegals were doing jobs Americans would not take. A large number of illegals were arrested at a meat packing plant in Greeley. Immediately management wailed they could never replace the workers because Americans didn't want the jobs. When they opened to interview for the replacement workers a few days later, THOUSANDS of Americans were in line for the jobs. Management was furious because Americans joined unions and would pressure them for health care plan improvements, etc.

[leitmotiv]

A liberal friend of mine had this to say about Guiliani. For years he hated going to New York City because, to him, it was a pit---filthy and the crime was out of control. Post-Guiliani, NYC was, in his experience, clean and safe---it looked like a European city, and he wasn't afraid of being mugged anymore.

[Worf101]

Originally posted by leitmotiv:
A liberal friend of mine had this to say about Guiliani. For years he hated going to New York City because, to him, it was a pit---filthy and the crime was out of control. Post-Guiliani, NYC was clean and safe---it looked like a European city, and he wasn't afraid of being mugged.

Yes, he did improve the quality of life in NYC. And I'm sure your liberal friend felt nice and safe there. Rudy made New York City "safe" for white people by making it a symbol of fear for everyone else. I'm a law abiding, tax paying veteran who's never, ever spent a minute in jail for anything. I also happen to be Black, Rudy's New York made me fear for my life from criminal and police alike. And it wasn't just the high profile rapings and killings of innocent, unarmed non-white males by his Police force that made me fear and loathe New York but also the thousands of unreported harrassmants and beatings used to make New York City safe for Disney. So sorry, as a Black Male who lived through Rudy's reign of terror he can kiss my ***. May he never rear his bald comb over again.

Da Worfster

[Pirschjaeger]

I have to ask you guys a question.

Why do Americans always have to polarize people by saying "liberal", "conservative", "republican", or "democrat"?

This behavior is unfair and in a sense dishonest because everyone knows full well that prejudism, either for or against, will be the basis of how the person's messages are interpreted and accepted/rejected.

So, why?

Fritz

[Worf101]

Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
I have to ask you guys a question.

Why do Americans always have to polarize people by saying "liberal", "conservative", "republican", or "democrat"?

This behavior is unfair and in a sense dishonest because everyone knows full well that prejudism, either for or against, will be the basis of how the person's messages are interpreted and accepted/rejected.

So, why?

Fritz
You may as well ask why is the sky blue. Over in your neck of the woods they were killing folks over lables as well. Cept those labels were "catholic", "protestant", "Hugonot", "pagan" etc... Societies always find some manner of dividing themselves along racial, socio-economic, class or religous lines. It's certainly not unique to us. We use it as a shorthand so we can start banging one another over the head.

That's why I'm a registered independent and rarely, if ever, discuss politics with ANYONE. I'm trying this out for size right now. If it devolves into the mire of recriminations and chit throwing that I expect it to, then I'll probably not spend much time here.

Da Worfster

[Pirschjaeger]

Can you explain "registered independent"?

Fritz

[Stew278]

Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:

The US is a big country with various societies and cultures. If a few electronically enhanced Amish want to teach ID in their schools, why not let them. It is those people who will suffer in the end. I seriously doubt it would get enough support, even in their own areas.




I don't think a lot of Americans would have an issue with ID being taught in private, religiously oriented schools. The problem is the creationist crowd wants ID to be taught in public schools in science classes. They believe that packaging it as a scientific theory will somehow give it more credibility. They also want warning labels placed on science textbooks that claim evolution is just a theory and not scientifically proven (but ID is?).

[arthursmedley]

Dont go Worf;
This is quite fascinating.
With all due respect to Pirschjarger hes just demonstrating that to us europeans labels like liberal or conservative (used in the US sense) are meaningless or at best rather different in terms of european politics.

However, I can tell you we're all riveted by this years race.

I think it's fairly safe to say that the US stands at a major crossroads as to what the future holds and the choice you guys make now and in November matters more to us on this side of the pond since....what? 1940?

Also, I see we're all united on one thing in both the US and europe; we're now at the sad state of affairs where are first consideration in an election is 'which one of these Bozo's will do the least harm?'

regards.

[Wurkeri]

Originally posted by arthursmedley:
With all due respect to Pirschjarger hes just demonstrating that to us europeans labels like liberal or conservative (used in the US sense) are meaningless or at best rather different in terms of european politics.

This indeed a problem in the case of the Ron Paul as he is often called as a "libertarian" in US terminology which is close to "liberal" in European terms. However, calling Ron Paul liberal in US is probably an insult...

[Worf101]

Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Can you explain "registered independent"?

Fritz
We here in America, although we are a Democracy it is a "representative" one. We don't directly vote for who will be President we vote for a group of people who will pick the President. This is called the Electoral College. Seats in this college are apportioned equally among the States and it is NOT done by population. Hence you can wind up with what we had in 2000 where Gore had more votes but less seats in the Electoral College, so.. he loses.

Our electoral proces is designed to be a 2 party system and winner take all. We don't have a "proportional democracy" like many Europeans do. Here the Greens and Communists would have power only if they won the general election outright. Even if you voted in a substantial number of Greens or Socialists into the Congress the would not weild much power if at all. Sure they'd have individual votes but they'd have to become quite large a "third party" if you will before they could influence what is essentially a 2 party system here.

Folks who vote in the primaries in my State, New York, have to be registered as either a Democrat, Republican or other party. I'm a registered "Independent", I eschew either of the big parties because of my own personal brand of politics. I can vote in the General election in November but not in either the Democratic nor Republican Primaries which were held here last Tuesday.

Had there been an Independent Party Candidate running, then I could've entered the Booth and voted for who I'd wanted. Each State and party decides how their primaries or caucuses will be run. This often leads to chaos, but no one said practicing democracy would be "neat and tidy".

Da Worfster

[MEGILE]

Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:


He's the same guy that says people should govern themselves within the regulations of the constitution.

Fritz

Never said he wasn't http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I like Paul.. he says what he believes, and I believe what he says, EXCEPT for this one point. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


The US is a big country with various societies and cultures. If a few electronically enhanced Amish want to teach ID in their schools, why not let them.

IMO "few" is wholly misrepresenting ID in schools as a fringe principal. From what I can tell (and I may well be wrong) ID is gathering support, and naturally finds a home with many evangelicals.

Further, if you are going to have a national curiculum, one of the principals should inculde, Science in Science Class.

Call me old fashioned, but IMO Children have the right to be taught Factual information.



Ron Paul, by not choosing sides in the debate, is simply doing what he says a president should do. It is not up to the president to make decisions for the people. That's congress's job. The president should take his orders from congress and congress from the people.

Either 1 - Ron Paul really thinks Evolution is not true or
2 - he is pandering to the christian right.

I suspect it's number 2, and if you want to be President.. you need votes.

He was called on his opinion and he gave it, but I seriously doubt he would ever legislate for or against it.


You guys should be looking a the big picture rather than focusing on little insignificant details. The details are what certain forms of government want you to look at.

Teaching ID in science class IS an important detail.

I would doubt Ron Paul would legislate for or against ID in schools anyway. State rule etc.

[Pirschjaeger]

Maybe I should introduce myself just a little so my questions won't be taken the wrong way.

I was born and raised in Canada. I moved from Canada to Egypt when I was in my late 20's. Later I moved to China and stayed there for 7 years. Recently I've moved to Germany.

So, I've lived under and seen different forms of politics.

Worf,

the reason I asked the question about terms is because it is contradictory to what I know of the constitution, besides the points I mentioned. To me it makes things blurry.

I'm also surprised that you have to register your political position, at least to a degree. That just doesn't seem right. But thanks for taking the time to explain.

Here, in a little village in Germany, they are about to elect a new leader. I was interested until I got a form in the mail. This form asks too much information. It's called a voter registration, but to me it seemed more of an invasion of my privacy and a tactic to identify my political stance.

The form is where it belongs, in the trash. I am already registered at the "township". If that isn't good enough, then they can go pound sand.

Admittedly, I don't know much about American politics but as I previously said, I find it really interesting. But I feel that there's a great divide between the US Constitution and American politics. So, knowing that many members here are Americans, I thought this would be a good place to learn.

No matter who any of you would vote for, I couldn't really care. You choice is freedom of expression and no one can judge or be judged.

Do you guys agree or disagree that the Constitution has lost its weight?

Fritz

[Pirschjaeger]

Megile,

good points and I agree with you.

There should be a national curriculum and national standards. But who would do it and who should be responsible for it?

Should it be the responsibility of congress? What do you think?

Maybe ID should be limited to Sunday school. If they want more than that then I'd have to question both their sanity and their intentions.

Fritz

[leitmotiv]

Puuuuuuleze! Lecturing us on our "fast-and-dirty" political shorthand? Let's see, in the UK there are divers shades of conservatives from Sic the Yeomanry on the Rabble Aristos to garden variety anti-EU nationalists; there are out-and-out retro communists in the Labour Party to simple anything goes hedonists; and in the Liberal Party everything from classic liberals to U.S. style libertarians. Never forget red of tooth and fang Unionists from N. Ireland. The political permutations of France over the last 50 years could fill a 50 volume encyclopedia, and probably was done by a Frenchman. Etc

[MEGILE]

Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:


Do you guys agree or disagree that the Constitution has lost its weight?

Fritz

I would argue that the very ideals of the American Republic have been distorted to a degree.
Particularly in the area of Secularity.

A large number of Americans from what I have seen appear to be mistaken as to the secular ideals of the founding fathers.

I can see it now, the look on his face.. almost as if vommiting as he says "the secular left". - Bill Oreilly

The Big O is hilarious, and my favourite Fox guy... Hannity is close second however.

[MEGILE]

Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Puuuuuuleze! Euros lecturing on our political shorthand? Let's see, in the UK there are divers shades of conservatives from Sic the Yeomanry on the Rabble Aristos to garden variety anti-EU nationalists; there are out-and-out retro communists in the Labour Party to simple anything goes hedonists; and in the Liberal Party everything from classic liberals to U.S. style libertarians. Never forget red of tooth and fang Unionists from N. Ireland. The political permutations of France over the last 50 years could fill a 50 volume encyclopedia, and probably was done by a Frenchman. Etc

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

You seem to have mistaken me (assuming this is aimed at me) as someone who is particularly impressed by my Constitutional Monarchy.
Well I aint.

The American Republic was established I believe, in part as a reaction to the distasteful Old World democracies.

American's had the revolutionary idea that religion is no business of the government, and that every man has a say. They rox my sox0rs.

I'm so critical because it is (was?) the benchmark for government in the world.

[MEGILE]

Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:


Maybe ID should be limited to Sunday school. If they want more than that then I'd have to question both their sanity and their intentions.

Fritz

Teach it in world-theology class. Along with everything else. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[leitmotiv]

Fact: from the time the Puritans landed here, and before if you rightfully take into account the spirituality of the Native Americans, the U.S. has been a profoundly religious nation regardless of the machinations of Tom Jefferson and the other deists of the elite who designed our constitution. We are the heirs of Cotton Mather and Jonathan Edwards, and never be surprised by our weird-*** religiosity. It is American as napalm. Even the crazed hedonists of my ('60's) generation were profoundly affected by religion---whether we liked it or not.

[huggy87]

Originally posted by mortoma:
The one thing I can't understand is how we are letting that Democrat John McCain win the Republican nomination!! I am totally out of politics for the rest of my life I'm so disgusted by people voting for that scumbag.
I will no longer vote for the rest of my life and am turning my back on the Republican party.

That good for nothing, pro-illegal alien jerk is no better than Hillary. And he has voted for all the major anti-gun legislation that has come along. My home state senator, Richard Lugar, is almost as bad as he is. A virtual Democrat in Republican clothing.

Your "scumbag" and "jerk" launched off the pointy ends of ships in the dark only to spend 5 years in a POW camp. That in itself is not enough to qualify as president, but since you want to attack him personaly... What have you done for your country?

[MEGILE]

Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Fact: from the time the Puritans landed here, and before if you rightfully take into account the spirituality of the Native Americans, the U.S. has been a profoundly religious nation regardless of the machinations of Tom Jefferson and the other deists of the elite who designed our constitution. We are the heirs of Cotton Mather and Jonathan Edwards, and never be surprised by our weird-*** religiosity. It is American as napalm. Even the crazed hedonists of my ('60's) generation were profoundly affected by religion---whether we liked it or not.

I don't doubt the religiosity of the American persona.

But importantly, it isn't government mandated.

IIRC, the UK still has blasphemy laws for Christianity.
Give it another two weeks, and we will have the same instated for Islam.

[Worf101]

Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Maybe I should introduce myself just a little so my questions won't be taken the wrong way.

I was born and raised in Canada. I moved from Canada to Egypt when I was in my late 20's. Later I moved to China and stayed there for 7 years. Recently I've moved to Germany.

So, I've lived under and seen different forms of politics.

Worf,

the reason I asked the question about terms is because it is contradictory to what I know of the constitution, besides the points I mentioned. To me it makes things blurry.

I'm also surprised that you have to register your political position, at least to a degree. That just doesn't seem right. But thanks for taking the time to explain.

Here, in a little village in Germany, they are about to elect a new leader. I was interested until I got a form in the mail. This form asks too much information. It's called a voter registration, but to me it seemed more of an invasion of my privacy and a tactic to identify my political stance.

The form is where it belongs, in the trash. I am already registered at the "township". If that isn't good enough, then they can go pound sand.

Admittedly, I don't know much about American politics but as I previously said, I find it really interesting. But I feel that there's a great divide between the US Constitution and American politics. So, knowing that many members here are Americans, I thought this would be a good place to learn.

No matter who any of you would vote for, I couldn't really care. You choice is freedom of expression and no one can judge or be judged.

Do you guys agree or disagree that the Constitution has lost its weight?

Fritz

Yo Fritz and EVERYBODY don't read anything into my words. I'm enjoying this conversation and will try and educate ANYONE on aspects of the American electoral system as I feel comfortable speaking on. I enjoy informed, intelligent discussion of all stripe. The problem is finding the "informed and intelligent" parts at times.

To find people who don't know, but sincerely want to know and aren't afraid to ask is a jewel to be treasured. If I get something wrong and someone has more knowledge than I on some particular point I'll yeild the floor gladly and take correction and in some instances, direction. I am one American who knows that he does not "know" all things and everything. You've already answered some of my questions about your electoral process and for that I thank you.

Da Worfster

[leitmotiv]

John McCain's vicious attacks on conservatives while trying to ramrod Bush's amnesty program for illegal aliens through Congress removed him from the pale---as you can see from mortoma's reaction. M's reaction is rational considering the violence of McCain's attack on anti-amnesty conservatives.

[Urufu_Shinjiro]

I'm voting for Chuck Norris, he'll just roundhouse kick anyone you F's with us, lol.

[leitmotiv]

Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Fact: from the time the Puritans landed here, and before if you rightfully take into account the spirituality of the Native Americans, the U.S. has been a profoundly religious nation regardless of the machinations of Tom Jefferson and the other deists of the elite who designed our constitution. We are the heirs of Cotton Mather and Jonathan Edwards, and never be surprised by our weird-*** religiosity. It is American as napalm. Even the crazed hedonists of my ('60's) generation were profoundly affected by religion---whether we liked it or not.

I don't doubt the religiosity of the American persona.

But importantly, it isn't government mandated.

IIRC, the UK still has blasphemy laws for Christianity.
Give it another two weeks, and we will have the same instated for Islam. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Constitutional historians are completely baffled by the so-called "separation of church and state" thinking of the hard left. The Constitution was designed to deny any attempt to have a formal state religion like the Church of England, it was not designed to enforce atheism on the public sector.

[MEGILE]

Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:
I'm voting for Chuck Norris, he'll just roundhouse kick anyone you F's with us, lol.

LOL, aint he supporting huckabee?

Politician indecisivness drives me crazy...

Say what you want about immigration but PLEASE have an opinion and stick to it, regardless of your audience.

[MEGILE]

Originally posted by leitmotiv:
it was not designed to enforce atheism on the public sector.

Ofcourse... freedom of and from.

However was it not also set up so that one religion was not protected over another in the public sector(including presumably atheism - I use the term religion loosley)?

I'm not advocating the suppression of religion, I'm advocating Science in Science class. That is all.

the UK should not be so smug, because ID is currently being taught in a few new acadamies.

[Urufu_Shinjiro]

Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
it was not designed to enforce atheism on the public sector.

Ofcourse... freedom of and from.

However was it not also set up so that one religion was not protected over another in the public sector(including presumably atheism - I use the term religion loosley)?

I'm not advocating the suppression of religion, I'm advocating Science in Science class. That is all.

the UK should not be so smug, because ID is currently being taught in a few new acadamies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfortunately christianity is very much protected above all other religion. I remember in highschool there was a bible club but when we wanted to start a pagan club were we turned down. We tried to take it to the school board but they would not even hear us and we were actually punished at school for trying that.

[Pirschjaeger]

I thought the idea was to eliminate the possibility of oppression by the religious. Many of the first Americans were Europeans escaping from religious prosecution.

Something that you guys should keep in mind is that you grew up under different ideals. I grew up where religion didn't interfer in my life. Here in Europe, to a Canadian, religion does actually interfere in many aspects of daily life. But, to a European, they just don't see it because they grew up in it. So, it's important that during this discussion were respect the differences. A European will not understand until they live in N.A.

Joeap, where are you dude?

He's a Canadian living in Europe and I'd like to hear his opinion on this.

Fritz

[Worf101]

It's funny how two people can look at the same things completely different. In 2000 I supported McCain, sent him money and worked on his New York State bid. I was horrified by what was done to him in South Carolina by Rove and Company. I felt he was too good for either party.

Now he has the backing of many Independents and swing voters and many on the right want to castrate the man. I understand that he "doesn't toe the line" on every issue but who does? I ask just one question of his opponents do you truly believe that he would not act in the best interests of this country if elected. If you answer "no" then I guess you won't be voting for him.

Interesting.

Da Worfster

[MEGILE]

Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:


Unfortunately christianity is very much protected above all other religion. I remember in highschool there was a bible club but when we wanted to start a pagan club were we turned down. We tried to take it to the school board but they would not even hear us and we were actually punished at school for trying that.

A topical video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrWyTThbbKo

[leitmotiv]

Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
it was not designed to enforce atheism on the public sector.

Ofcourse... freedom of and from.

However was it not also set up so that one religion was not protected over another in the public sector(including presumably atheism - I use the term religion loosley)?

I'm not advocating the suppression of religion, I'm advocating Science in Science class. That is all.

the UK should not be so smug, because ID is currently being taught in a few new acadamies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfortunately christianity is very much protected above all other religion. I remember in highschool there was a bible club but when we wanted to start a pagan club were we turned down. We tried to take it to the school board but they would not even hear us and we were actually punished at school for trying that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nein. In the United States Navy right now all forms of religious practice are protected, including whacked out animal sacrifice cults---I have a friend, a Commander, who just retired who filled me in on all the divers practices now protected in the Navy. When I was in high school (1965-70, California), Unitarian atheists were allowed to skip the "pledge of allegiance" if they were offended by references to God.

[Urufu_Shinjiro]

Originally posted by leitmotiv:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
it was not designed to enforce atheism on the public sector.

Ofcourse... freedom of and from.

However was it not also set up so that one religion was not protected over another in the public sector(including presumably atheism - I use the term religion loosley)?

I'm not advocating the suppression of religion, I'm advocating Science in Science class. That is all.

the UK should not be so smug, because ID is currently being taught in a few new acadamies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfortunately christianity is very much protected above all other religion. I remember in highschool there was a bible club but when we wanted to start a pagan club were we turned down. We tried to take it to the school board but they would not even hear us and we were actually punished at school for trying that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nein. In the United States Navy right now all forms of religious practice are protected, including whacked out animal sacrifice cults---I have a friend, a Commander, who just retired who filled me in on all the divers practices now protected in the Navy. When I was in high school (1965-70, California), Unitarian atheists were allowed to skip the "pledge of allegiance" if they were offended by references to God. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well on the "official" side things have gotten better but the incident I describe was not that long ago, ten years. And not a small town either, jacksonville, FL, a city of over one million people. I see everyday how that church was protected this way and that church was kept safe from the other thing. When pagans need help we have to sue and the outcome is always questionable. Sorry if I'm taking this too far OT, 2000 years of being burned will make a guy bitter, lol.

[leitmotiv]

I was in schools in Colorado and California and never came across Bible clubs even in the Paleolithic Age ('60's). There was a fundamentalist Christian teacher in my 7th Grade class in Colorado, and everybody thought he was a loon. Most of us, and our parents were happy pagans. With the way people wear their religion on their sleeves these days, I imagine it is different.

[Pirschjaeger]

From my view, it seems that Bush lifted religion a bit, in order to do his dirty deeds. He uses "god" in his speeches all the time. Not very constitutional.

Am I right or wrong about Bush using the religious for his own agenda?

I don't want to offend, but it did seem to me that he was stirring up a religious war in order to get into Iraq.

Fritz

[Stew278]

Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:

Unfortunately christianity is very much protected above all other religion. I remember in highschool there was a bible club but when we wanted to start a pagan club were we turned down. We tried to take it to the school board but they would not even hear us and we were actually punished at school for trying that.

This is true. Freedom of religion in America often seems to only mean people are free to exercise whatever form of Christianity they wish. There's always that shrill, obnoxious minority composed of fundamentalists that tries to claim non-Christians aren't or shouldn't be real Americans.

When I was in high school (12 years ago, public school) we had a few students get suspended for having Slayer and Deicide posters in their lockers because they had pentagrams on them and it was banned for us to wear Marilyn Manson T-shirts or have his posters in our lockers. No one ever stopped people from having crosses in their lockers or wearing T-shirts with bible quotes on them. Is that impartial treatment? Is that tolerance of free speech and freedom of religion?

Wasn't there just a case awhile ago where Wiccans had to sue the federal gov't to allow their religious symbol to be put on the graves of members of their religion that were buried in federal cemeteries?

Freedom of religion and speech only exists so long as your beliefs don't offend the puritanical bible wavers that run this country.

[Urufu_Shinjiro]

Originally posted by Stew278:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:

Unfortunately christianity is very much protected above all other religion. I remember in highschool there was a bible club but when we wanted to start a pagan club were we turned down. We tried to take it to the school board but they would not even hear us and we were actually punished at school for trying that.

This is true. Freedom of religion in America often seems to only mean people are free to exercise whatever form of Christianity they wish. There's always that shrill, obnoxious minority composed of fundamentalists that tries to claim non-Christians aren't or shouldn't be real Americans.

When I was in high school (12 years ago, public school) we had a few students get suspended for having Slayer and Deicide posters in their lockers because they had pentagrams on them and it was banned for us to wear Marilyn Manson T-shirts or have his posters in our lockers. No one ever stopped people from having crosses in their lockers or wearing T-shirts with bible quotes on them. Is that impartial treatment? Is that tolerance of free speech and freedom of religion?

Wasn't there just a case awhile ago where Wiccans had to sue the federal gov't to allow their religious symbol to be put on the graves of members of their religion that were buried in federal cemeteries?

Freedom of religion and speech only exists so long as your beliefs don't offend the puritanical bible wavers that run this country. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

QFT!

[joeap]

Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:

Joeap, where are you dude?

He's a Canadian living in Europe and I'd like to hear his opinion on this.

Fritz

Here I am. Well, I am living in the "Protestant Rome" Geneva. Religion has permeated the culture here, though individual belief has fallen away. It's more in the way people think and act (Calvinist ethic) rather than personal piety. It seems to me it comes out most strongly when the issue of Islam comes up, as in most of Europe currently.

Religious tolerance came here at the price of a lot of bloodshed. Switzerland strangely enough stuck together because of the tension between language and religion. Most French speakers are traditionally Protestant for example, Italians are Catholic and German speakers split among the two. Plus the big cities are Protestant (Zurich, Geneva, Basel). Europe was not built on immigration as well, and past waves here were other Europeans (here it was largely Portuguese and Italian).

What brought it out was the large Muslim immigration after the war. North Africans in French speaking Europe or Turks in Germanic countries (I am generalising a bit). So many tensions from head scarves, to halal meat, to cemeteries. (Cemeteries here in Geneva are secular, recently Jews and Msulims have been lobbying for their own).

Another thing to note is my own experience is among the international community here. Many forms of belief and unbelief. Cultural/religious/political and of course individual clashes when I was living in student residence. Westerners (Western Europe and North America), ex-Communist bloc, Muslim world, East Asians and all permutations thereof. Oh and the man/woman thing but this is getting off topic.

I wonder if I haven't actually gone insane. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Bottom, line religion as a cultural foundation matters here.

[Pirschjaeger]

Originally posted by joeap:
Bottom, line religion as a cultural foundation matters here.

Yes. It seems religion is more a part of the culture on this side of the pond. There's a lot of gray between religion and culture and most people here, at least in Germany, can't always differenciate.

Fritz

[Airmail109]

Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
Bottom, line religion as a cultural foundation matters here.

Yes. It seems religion is more a part of the culture on this side of the pond. There's a lot of gray between religion and culture and most people here, at least in Germany, can't always differenciate.

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Post this on all your towns cars, should piss a few people off.

"Introduction
Some people falsely believe that it is impossible to prove the unexistence of anything, but they are wrong. It can, for example, be proved that there is no even prime number greater than two. Other people use to say that there is no way to prove if there is a god or not, or even that we cannot get any knowledge of god (agnosticism). My opinion as a strong atheist, is that we can in fact prove that god does not exist in the physical world. This document is my attempt to do so.

Definition of the word "god"
To prove the non-existence of god we first need to define the word "god". When christians talk about god they mean an almighty being. This, I think, is the only god that holds, since it is the only god that can be logically justified.

I think it makes most sense if god is female, because only women can give life. Something that even people in the Stone Age understood. Later when wars affected the cultural evolution, and men took control of society, god became male, but the female god still lives on in the expression "Mother earth". It should also be pointed out that an omnipotent god must be either androgyne or sexless. However, in most religions god is male so I will refer to god as 'he', 'him' etc.

Some people (Einstein for instance) believe in a god who is not a personal god, but a Spinozan kind of god. I claim that this god is not a god! To say that god is universe - by getting knowledge of the universe we get knowledge of god - is to redefine the meaning of the word god. This has nothing to do with the word god as it was defined by the "primitive" cultures which preceded our present civilization. He can be excluded with Occam's razor, and most important: Such a god does not hear prayers.

If god is not omnipotent there is nothing that prevents him from being a product of the universe. If that is the case, what makes god divine? Then god would only be an alien, a being of matter; probably containing flesh, blood and DNA like all life we know of. Everything god is able to do would be things that human beings also will be able to do, all his knowledge would be knowledge we will also achieve. In fact humans would be gods, which should lead to some strange kind of humanism!

Many people justify their faith with god as an explanation. What is the meaning of life? Where does time and space come from? Who created the physical constants? et cetera. Because we lack knowledge of these things - and maybe never will, since they are questions like "what is the color of a second?" or "how does sound taste?" - god is there as an explanation.

Let's say that god is the meaning of life, what then is the meaning of god? If god has a nature, who created that nature? If god created time and space, how can god exist without it? Since creation is an event in time, how could god create time? and who created god? To answer these questions god must be almighty, or else you can't explain them. In fact you can if you say god stands above time and space and so on (which he indeed does if he is almighty), but to be able to prevent god from being tied to future phenomena, you must give him the quality of omnipotence so he can stand above everything.

The qualities of an omnipotent god
If god is almighty there are several qualities he must have. They are as follows:

He must know everything. Everything that is, everything that has been and everything that will be. To be able to know everything that will be he must know every position and every momentum of every particle in cosmos (Laplace's "World Spirit").
He must be worth our worship. A being that is not worth worshipping is no god.
He must be able to do anything. If there are things that god can't do, he certainly is not omnipotent.
He must be above time. Something that even St. Augustine deduced. But not only that, god must stand above all possible dimensions.
He cannot be 'good' or 'evil' or, indeed, have any subjective characteristica. If god is all good, he cannot do evil things and cannot be almighty. Most people would object and say that good can do evil but chooses not to do it. Well, if god is all good he can't choose to do evil things, can he?
The theodicé problem
We also have the theodice problem, stated by David Hume:
If the evil in the world is intended by god he is not good. If it violates his intentions he is not almighty. God can't be both almighty and good. There are many objections to this, but none that holds since god is ultimately responsible for the existence of evil. Besides, if only god can create he must have created evil. If somebody else (the devil) created evil, how can one know that god, and not Satan created the universe?

For a good look at the Theodicé problem try The problem of natural evil


Reasons not to believe in god
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle
I have refuted this argument myself. See Refuted proofs for an explanation

The ontological evidence against gods
Neccesary a god is a being that is worth worshipping, so if there is no being worth worshipping there cannot be a god.

Not any of the existing religions can provide such a god. How do we know if there are no undiscovered beings worthy our submission? Well if there is a being that has either failed or not tried to communicate with us that being is not worth worshipping either, so the ontological evidence against god holds, even without complete knowledge of the world.

There is a test, based on the ontological evidence against god, that you can do to try the existence of god. Pray, and ask god to provide you with a clear proof for his existence within a week. After that week, if you have got a proof that god exists, send me the evidence. If not, there are only three reasons I can think of that are plausible: (1) God does not exist, (2) God does not want to or (3) God can't give you this evidence. Because of the ontological evidence, alternative (2) and (3) are not worth your worship and thus they equal alternative (1). So if you get no response there is no god.

The meaning of the word existence
What do we mean by existence? The very definition for existence is that a thing is said to exist if it relates in some way to some other thing. That is, things exist in relation to each other. For us, that means that something is part of our system ('The known world'). God is defined to be infinite, in which case it is not possible for there to be anything other than god because "infinite" is all-inclusive. But if there is nothing other than god then either god cannot be said to exist for the reason just explained, or god is the known world, in which case, by definition, god is not a god.

Occam's razor
Occam's razor was formulated by William of Occam (1285-1349) and says: "Non est ponenda pluralites sive necessitate" or in english: "Do not multiply entities unless necessarily". It is a principle for scientific labour which means that one should use a simple explanation with a few explanatory premises before a more complex one.

Let's say that everything must be created, and that was done by an omnipotent god. A god which stands above time, space, moral and existence, which is self containing and in it self has it's own cause. This entity can surely be replaced by the known world. The world stands above time, space, moral, existence, is self containing and in it has it's own meaning. Most theists agree that god has a nature. Then we must raise the question, who created god's nature? If we just accept that god has a nature and exists without a cause, why not say that the known world just is and that the laws of physics are what they are, without a cause?

God is not really an explanation, only a non-explanation. It is impossible to gain information from non-information so God as an explanation is a dead end. When we have said that the reason for something is that 'god did it that way' there is no way to understand it any further. We just shrug our shoulders and accept things as they are. To explain the unknown by god is only to explain how it happened, not why. If we are to investigate the world and build our views of life from the world, we cannot assume a god. Because adding god as an explanation leaves as many, if not more questions than it explains, god has to be removed with Occam's razor if we are serious in investigating the world.

Some things are impossible to do
There are things that are impossible to do. For example nobody can cover a two-dimensional surface with two-dimensional circles, without making them overlap. It is impossible to add the numbers two and two and get 666. You can not go back in time (without passing an infinite entropy barrier). The number of things that are impossible to do are almost infinite. If god were to be almighty he would be able to do them, but it's impossible to do so.

Some people say that he can only do things that are logically possible to do, but what is? Is it logically possible to walk on water? Is it logically possible to rise from the dead? Is it logically possible to stand above time, space and all other dimensions - and still exist? I'd say that everything which violates the laws of physics are logically impossible and thus omnipotence is logically impossible. Besides if omnipotence is a relative quality there is no way to tell omnipotence from non-omnipotence. For omnipotence to be a valid expression it must be absolute, but we have no objective criteria to measure omnipotence so the word itself is useless.

Omnipotence is impossible due to paradoxes
Another way to disprove the almighty god is that omnipotence leads to paradoxes. Can god make a rock that is too heavy for him to carry? Can god build a wall that even he can't tear down?

Also, if god knows everything, he knows what he will do in the "future" (in any dimension, not necessary the time dimension). He must have known that from the very start of his own existence. Thus god's actions are predestined. God is tied by faith, he has no free will. If god has no free will god is not omnipotent. Another way to put it is that to be able to make plans and decisions one must act over time. If god stands above time he can not do that and has no free will. Indeed, if god stands above all dimensions god is dimensionless - a singularity, nothing, void!

Besides there can exist no free wills at all if god is almighty. If you had a free will, god wouldn't know what you would do tomorrow and wouldn't be omnipotent.

The void creator
If everything must have been created, then god must have been created as well. If god is not created, then everything mustn't have a creator, so why should life or cosmos have one?

Besides this argument has another leap. If everything has a source and god is that source, then god must have existed without it before he created it. So if god created time and space, he must live outside of time and space. Thus he is non-existent. If all life must come from something and that is god, god is not alive and hence non-existent. If moral must come from god, god lacks moral. If logic comes from god, god is illogic. If nature comes from god, god is unnatural. If existence comes from god, god is non-existent. If god is the cause of everything, god is void

We would never notice god
This is not an evidence against god, but rather describes the lack of sense in praying to a god who stands above time.

If god stands above time and created time and space he can not be the first link in a time dependent chain of events. Rather he would affect every step in all chains, and we would only see god in the laws of physics (Davies, 1983, chapter 4). This god is an unnecessary entity to describe the world and should be removed with Occam's razor

If somebody would pray to god and god would listen, the laws would change to achieve the desired result. Thus the world would be different and the prayer would never have been said. Besides god would already (in an "above time" sense of view) know that you would pray, and already have changed the world. Prayers would be totally meaningless. We would already live in the best world possible, and any prayer would be to doubt the wisdom of god.

Even worse: For every prayer said, god has not acted, or else the prayer had been undone. This means that the more people have prayed, the more bad things in the world have persisted. Therefore, the more you pray, the more evil persist (provided god exists and stands above time).

A much better way to change the world is to do it yourself. Then you would know that it was you who made the world better. The effect of prayers are not scientific provable, whilst the effect of actions are. Instead of praying you should set to work at improving your situation. This is what humanism is about.

Nobody really believes in god
Schopenhauer once said something like:

"Man can do anything he wants, but he can not want whatever he wants."

My thesis is that people who claim to believe in god do not really do so. They just wish to believe in god. They somehow feel that their lives are meaningless without god, so they choose to close their eyes to evidence against the existence of god. The christian view is well expressed by Cardinal Ratzinger:

"Religious liberty can not justify freedom for divergence. This freedom does not aim at any freedom relative truth, but concerns the free descicion for a person to, according to his moral inclinations accept the truth." (The times, June 27 1990, p9) [Translated to Swedish in the Swedish version of (Baigenth, Leigh, 1991) and then translated back to english by me]

It's as clear as it can be! For a christian you accept the "truth" according to your moral, and then have to be strong in your faith to keep your believes. You decide a priori what to believe and then try to convince yourself and others that it is true. But theists don't really believe, because to believe something is to take it for true, and just like in Nazareth's song Sold my soul there is no sign of god in the world. When you have the evidence for and against something your sub-conscious works on it and makes a conclusion. The process can't be affected by your will, only delayed or suppressed, which will lead to psychoses, and those are far more common among (catholic) priests than any other group..

I have personal experience of this believing what you want to believe. When I was a child I believed in a lot of crazy things. I thought my stuffed animals were intelligent. I believed in Santa Claus. I thought there were monsters under my bed at night. I even believed in god after I heard some of the tales from the old testament. Then I became older and realized that these things weren't true. When I look back I don't understand how I could believe in them, it must have been that I wanted to do so. (Except for the monsters, which had to do with fear of the dark)

When many religious people are confronted with criticism of their religion they convert to atheism or agnosticism. Examples of people who became critical to the dogmas of christianity are Charles Darwin (Darwin, 1958), Dan Barker (Barker, 19??), Ernest Renan plus many former "Catholic modernists" in the 19th century such as Alfred Loisy and Antonio Fogazzaro (Baigenth, Leigh, 1991). The Catholic modernism evolved in the late 19th century and was banned in 1907 by the Vatican (Baigenth, Leigh, 1991). These people are to me clear evidence that an enlightened person will after considering the facts, reject christianity and other religions that contain deities.

Note: This is not the "Plead to authority" fallacy. I'm talking people here, who were trying to prove the existence of god and turned atheists. They did not want to do this, but had to after reading a lot of books and doing a lot of thinking on the subject.

Epilogue
I have tried to define the only god that can be philosophically justified and show some examples why this god cannot exist. After reading this document you may object and say that god is beyond human understanding and can't be defined in scientific terms. This is the view of agnosticism.

If god is so mysterious, how can we know anything about him? Through the Bible? How do we know that the Bible and not the Koran or the Vedha books, for example, are the words of god? (or the bible if you believe in any of the other two books). Considering the cruelties that have been made in the name of god, how do we know that not all religions are made by Satan?

If there is no way to know this but to trust people who claim they have had "divine experiences" there is no way to tell true from false prophets. One has to give up his free mind and follow the authority of a dictator. Remember also that it is the person making a positive claim who has to prove it.

"I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." -- Bertrand Russell

"We shall not believe anything unless there is reasonable cause to believe that it is true" -- Ingemar Hedenius"

[Bearcat99]

Originally posted by Megile:
The guy recently said, Evolution is "just a theory"... the guys a doctor. Sounds like pandering to the ignorant evangelicals to me.
Can't blame him really.


Evolution is just a theory. It has not been proven.


Originally posted by Worf101:
As a registered Independent, I've listened to all the candidates as much as I possibly could. There are many things that Ron Paul espouses that I can get behind. I personally think that he's "honest". By that I mean he's honest enough to say what he means knowing full well that that's not how you get elected to dog catcher let alone President in this country.

I loved his going toe to toe with Rudy when the latter was trying to "wave the bloody shirt" of 911 and ride that to the White House. Of all the candidates I found Rudy to be the most distasteful. Why? Because I lived through his reign as the "Sheriff of Notingham" or "King of Dulac" when he was Mayor of New York City. People forget that, prior to 911, his reign was so polorizing and inflamatory that they changed the laws of New City to prevent him from running again.

Yeah he cleaned up the streets, yeah he got rid of the porno houses on 42nd Street and brought Disney to Downtown, but he also loosed the New York City Police Department on certain populations of the and gave them Gestapo like powers to terrorize and kill almost with impugnity. He is one person I will not and do not miss. Thank god his candidacy is done.

Da Worfster


Yes, he did improve the quality of life in NYC. And I'm sure your liberal friend felt nice and safe there. Rudy made New York City "safe" for white people by making it a symbol of fear for everyone else. I'm a law abiding, tax paying veteran who's never, ever spent a minute in jail for anything. I also happen to be Black, Rudy's New York made me fear for my life from criminal and police alike. And it wasn't just the high profile rapings and killings of innocent, unarmed non-white males by his Police force that made me fear and loathe New York but also the thousands of unreported harrassmants and beatings used to make New York City safe for Disney. So sorry, as a Black Male who lived through Rudy's reign of terror he can kiss my ***. May he never rear his bald comb over again.

Rgr that... I used to call him Adolph Ghoulianni...


The consensus among outraged conservatives is that the open border was (1) a sop to Mexico because the North American Free Trade Agreement put huge numbers of Mexican agricultural workers out of work in Mexico, and (2) a favor to big business because it temporarily rendered collective bargaining impossible because the unions were undermined by the illegal immigrants who, initially, took the worst jobs at lower wages than Americans. Of course, this was illusory because the illegals wanted to move up, not be stuck at the bottom. Was a huge fillip to the service industry and to rich people who thought hiring illegals for domestic help was great (until they stole valuables and split). The policy was INSANE. America has now taken on Mexico's illiterate peasantry, and a huge number of criminals. We cannot afford either. Everybody lost in the deal. There was an instructive example in Greeley, Colorado, of the falseness of the claim the illegals were doing jobs Americans would not take. A large number of illegals were arrested at a meat packing plant in Greeley. Immediately management wailed they could never replace the workers because Americans didn't want the jobs. When they opened to interview for the replacement workers a few days later, THOUSANDS of Americans were in line for the jobs. Management was furious because Americans joined unions and would pressure them for health care plan improvements, etc.

The seeds for what we now have were planted through several administrations... Republican & Democrat... NAFTA, GATT...


I have to ask you guys a question.

Why do Americans always have to polarize people by saying "liberal", "conservative", "republican", or "democrat"?
This behavior is unfair and in a sense dishonest because everyone knows full well that prejudism, either for or against, will be the basis of how the person's messages are interpreted and accepted/rejected.
So, why?

Oh please.... Do you mean to tell me that European politics doesnt have the equivalent labels... in current politics? They may have different names... but the bottom line is the same.


Constitutional historians are completely baffled by the so-called "separation of church and state" thinking of the hard left. The Constitution was designed to deny any attempt to have a formal state religion like the Church of England, it was not designed to enforce atheism on the public sector.

Exactly... nothing more, and certainly not what many have made it... then again ... to be honest this is also a sort of backlash... I remember well the shenanigans of the MM in the 80s. The current state of affairs is a direct result of that.


It's funny how two people can look at the same things completely different. In 2000 I supported McCain, sent him money and worked on his New York State bid. I was horrified by what was done to him in South Carolina by Rove and Company. I felt he was too good for either party.

Now he has the backing of many Independents and swing voters and many on the right want to castrate the man. I understand that he "doesn't toe the line" on every issue but who does? I ask just one question of his opponents do you truly believe that he would not act in the best interests of this country if elected. If you answer "no" then I guess you won't be voting for him.

If I were to vote Republican I'd vote for McCain.. but I wont be voting Republican this time around...


From my view, it seems that Bush lifted religion a bit, in order to do his dirty deeds. He uses "god" in his speeches all the time. Not very constitutional.

Am I right or wrong about Bush using the religious for his own agenda?

I don't want to offend, but it did seem to me that he was stirring up a religious war in order to get into Iraq.


President Bush used Christianity for his own ends... the fact that his administration had to lie and manipulate not only the facts but the public to lauinch this war says a lot about it's "values" .... the fact that we have a system whereby corporations use organized bribery to pass legislation... with no shame whatsoever... they even gave it a nice respectable name... "lobbying" says a lot about it. The process I mean. I would rather cast a vote for a young "inexperienced" (As much as inexperience counts... thats why Presidents select cabinets... duuuhhh) candidate who is beholden to the people than one who from the outset we know is beholden to the PACS that paid for their campaign..

[MEGILE]

Originally posted by Bearcat99:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
The guy recently said, Evolution is "just a theory"... the guys a doctor. Sounds like pandering to the ignorant evangelicals to me.
Can't blame him really.


Evolution is just a theory.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hello http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Stick your fingers in the nearest electral socket, and please tell me Ohm's law is "just" a theory.

No unfortunatley, you appear to misunderstand the term 'theory'. In the non-scientific world, theory means... an idea, maybe an educated guess.
In science, it means...

"A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena"

That's a pretty good explanation. Evolution is one of our best (scientific) Theories, there are no current alternatives, and if there ever is, our perspective may change.

[Pirschjaeger]

Oh please.... Do you mean to tell me that European politics doesnt have the equivalent labels... in current politics? They may have different names... but the bottom line is the same.

It wasn't about comparisons but if I had to I'd say there seems to be a difference to a degree.

See I get somewhat confused when it comes to American politics. So many claim they are willing to die to defend the constitution yet I see few living to defend the constitution. I'm no expert on the American constitution but based on what I do know I see so many contradicting it.

I don't know if Americans realize this or not but the US Constitution is regarded by most, globally, as the best there is. But that same piece of paper loses its value if the people it was written for can't even defend or follow it.

But, for the sake of discussion, I'll remove "Americans" and replace it with "people".

Fritz

[joeap]

Originally posted by Aimail101:


Post this on all your towns cars, should piss a few people off.
...


tl;dr http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Kidding, I have read most of those arguments. Point is, most people here would agree with it...some would be pissed but the point we were making is religion formed the culture and effects people subconsiously even if they claim to be non-believers.

Now about the Constitution, I wonder if it ever has been followed sometimes.

[Airmail109]

Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
The guy recently said, Evolution is "just a theory"... the guys a doctor. Sounds like pandering to the ignorant evangelicals to me.
Can't blame him really.


Evolution is just a theory.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hello http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Stick your fingers in the nearest electral socket, and please tell me Ohm's law is "just" a theory.

No unfortunatley, you appear to misunderstand the term 'theory'. In the non-scientific world, theory means... an idea, maybe an educated guess.
In science, it means...

"A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena"

That's a pretty good explanation. Evolution is one of our best (scientific) Theories, there are no current alternatives, and if there ever is, our perspective may change. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

hell you only have to look at the human genome to see how we've evolved.

[Bearcat99]

Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Oh please.... Do you mean to tell me that European politics doesnt have the equivalent labels... in current politics? They may have different names... but the bottom line is the same.

It wasn't about comparisons but if I had to I'd say there seems to be a difference to a degree.

See I get somewhat confused when it comes to American politics. So many claim they are willing to die to defend the constitution yet I see few living to defend the constitution. I'm no expert on the American constitution but based on what I do know I see so many contradicting it.

I don't know if Americans realize this or not but the US Constitution is regarded by most, globally, as the best there is. But that same piece of paper loses its value if the people it was written for can't even defend or follow it.

But, for the sake of discussion, I'll remove "Americans" and replace it with "people".

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah well that is true... in fact the past 40 years have done a lot to shred the constitution quite a bit...

as for evolution.... it has been accepted by most of the scientific community.. but it still has not been proven... not where humans are concerned... I guess we can just agree to disagree...

[Airmail109]

Originally posted by Bearcat99:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Oh please.... Do you mean to tell me that European politics doesnt have the equivalent labels... in current politics? They may have different names... but the bottom line is the same.

It wasn't about comparisons but if I had to I'd say there seems to be a difference to a degree.

See I get somewhat confused when it comes to American politics. So many claim they are willing to die to defend the constitution yet I see few living to defend the constitution. I'm no expert on the American constitution but based on what I do know I see so many contradicting it.

I don't know if Americans realize this or not but the US Constitution is regarded by most, globally, as the best there is. But that same piece of paper loses its value if the people it was written for can't even defend or follow it.

But, for the sake of discussion, I'll remove "Americans" and replace it with "people".

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah well that is true... in fact the past 40 years have done a lot to shred the constitution quite a bit...

as for evolution.... it has been accepted by most of the scientific community.. but it still has not been proven... not where humans are concerned... I guess we can just agree to disagree... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

arm look at the human genome project

also look at projects whrre anthropologists have tracked human migration out of africa through the use of dna and genomes. They can actually tell you at what points certain racial traits began to develop. Redheads for example are a kind of genetic mutation, genetic mutations and evolution are one and the same. Some die off others don't.

Its NOT a theory, it has been observed and recorded.

Because modern day mating is somewhat screwed up and to selective, humans WILL see two different species evolve over the next millenia. A genetic elite, and an underclass. You can see this to a certain extent today but it will get much much more pronounced.

[leitmotiv]

Might be helpful to recall that Darwin's cousin became a prophet of eugenics, and even Darwin himself was intellectually associated with this nasty science which led to so much horror in the 20th century. Darwin's theory is just that. No self-respecting scientist would claim it is beyond being tested. Another thing, in college some of my best friends were in physics, and they scoffed at atheists. They, above all, agree with Hamlet that there is more to existence "than your philosophy, Horatio." Mechanistic science is dead dreary and stultifying. I have seen too many bizarre things in my life to ever buy the mechanical explanations. Modern medicine is the accidental biggest critique of this. Doctors are fantastic at fixing broken parts, but they do not have a clue about how to help people stay healthy, and , if something goes wrong, their solution is to devastate the body with dangerous pharmaceutical drugs. A neurologist friend of mine said doctors know very little about what makes bodies fail, and that we overrate our knowledge of biology constantly.

[Airmail109]

Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Might be helpful to recall that Darwin's cousin became a prophet of eugenics, and even Darwin himself was intellectually associated with this nasty science which led to so much horror in the 20th century. Darwin's theory is just that. No self-respecting scientist would claim it is beyond being tested. Another thing, in college some of my best friends were in physics, and they scoffed at atheists. They, above all, agree with Hamlet that there is more to existence "than your philosophy, Horatio." Mechanistic science is dead dreary and stultifying. I have seen too many bizarre things in my life to ever buy the mechanical explanations. Modern medicine is the accidental biggest critique of this. Doctors are fantastic at fixing broken parts, but they do not have a clue about how to help people stay healthy, and , if something goes wrong, their solution is to devastate the body with dangerous pharmaceutical drugs. A neurologist friend of mine said doctors know very little about what makes bodies fail, and that we overrate our knowledge of biology constantly.

Oh dear god, look up quantum physics. Thats more awe inspiring and less dreary than any religion I can think of.

And yes they do have a clue how to make people stay healthy its called nutrition, exercise and Genetics. Within the next 20 years we will be able to target the genes that make us age, and most likely extend our lives to 120 years.

A breakdown in health is the result of an imperfect system bar the natural clock, no system is EVER perfect. Its like a bug in a games coding. Thats one of the reasons why evolution exists, to try and improve an organic system. For example we still haven't evolved to walk on two feet properly, this is why we get bad backs.

[MEGILE]

Originally posted by Aimail101:


Its NOT a theory, it has been observed and recorded.



no no, it IS a Scientific Theory, but not a thoery in the lay sense.

Scientific theories are testable, repeatable, and make predicitons about things. Evolution is one of the great Scientific theories.

gotta go run an errand will continue.

[MEGILE]

Originally posted by Bearcat99:
but it still has not been proven... not where humans are concerned...

Disagree 100%. But perhaps you knew I would say that.


Leitmotiv:
Might be helpful to recall that Darwin's cousin became a prophet of eugenics

Interesting but irrelevant.


Leitmotiv:
Mechanistic science is dead dreary and stultifying. I have seen too many bizarre things in my life to ever buy the mechanical explanations.



Boring? Disagree, but regardless, it may not feel warm and fuzzy, but mechanistic science is always advancing.

Personal incredulity is irrelevant.

No thumb to suck, or skirt to hold with Science, and Evolution.


Leitmotiv:

Doctors are fantastic at fixing broken parts, but they do not have a clue about how to help people stay healthy, and , if something goes wrong, their solution is to devastate the body with dangerous pharmaceutical drugs.



It is frustrating that as much as we know, and as much we can do... there is an infinte amount we can't.

Par example... we can do heart transplants, but you have to take immunosuppression drugs for the rest of your life, due to the protein antigens.

But Science marches onwards.

[leitmotiv]

Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Might be helpful to recall that Darwin's cousin became a prophet of eugenics, and even Darwin himself was intellectually associated with this nasty science which led to so much horror in the 20th century. Darwin's theory is just that. No self-respecting scientist would claim it is beyond being tested. Another thing, in college some of my best friends were in physics, and they scoffed at atheists. They, above all, agree with Hamlet that there is more to existence "than your philosophy, Horatio." Mechanistic science is dead dreary and stultifying. I have seen too many bizarre things in my life to ever buy the mechanical explanations. Modern medicine is the accidental biggest critique of this. Doctors are fantastic at fixing broken parts, but they do not have a clue about how to help people stay healthy, and , if something goes wrong, their solution is to devastate the body with dangerous pharmaceutical drugs. A neurologist friend of mine said doctors know very little about what makes bodies fail, and that we overrate our knowledge of biology constantly.

Oh dear god, look up quantum physics. Thats more awe inspiring and less dreary than any religion I can think of.

And yes they do have a clue how to make people stay healthy its called nutrition, exercise and Genetics. Within the next 20 years we will be able to target the genes that make us age, and most likely extend our lives to 120 years.

A breakdown in health is the result of an imperfect system bar the natural clock, no system is EVER perfect. Its like a bug in a games coding. Thats one of the reasons why evolution exists, to try and improve an organic system. For example we still haven't evolved to walk on two feet properly, this is why we get bad backs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Name one Western doctor who has anything beyond the most superficial understanding of nutrition. Who asks for perfection? We'll never get it anyway. As Baron von Munchausen says "No doctors." They are blunderers just as they were in the 18th century when they were butts for lampoons.

Believe me, I'd never throw out Western science, or throw out the Enlightenment. I remember a phone call I received from a friend just as the Iranian revolution broke out in '79---"Thank God for the Enlightenment!" he said.

[Airmail109]

Originally posted by leitmotiv:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Might be helpful to recall that Darwin's cousin became a prophet of eugenics, and even Darwin himself was intellectually associated with this nasty science which led to so much horror in the 20th century. Darwin's theory is just that. No self-respecting scientist would claim it is beyond being tested. Another thing, in college some of my best friends were in physics, and they scoffed at atheists. They, above all, agree with Hamlet that there is more to existence "than your philosophy, Horatio." Mechanistic science is dead dreary and stultifying. I have seen too many bizarre things in my life to ever buy the mechanical explanations. Modern medicine is the accidental biggest critique of this. Doctors are fantastic at fixing broken parts, but they do not have a clue about how to help people stay healthy, and , if something goes wrong, their solution is to devastate the body with dangerous pharmaceutical drugs. A neurologist friend of mine said doctors know very little about what makes bodies fail, and that we overrate our knowledge of biology constantly.

Oh dear god, look up quantum physics. Thats more awe inspiring and less dreary than any religion I can think of.

And yes they do have a clue how to make people stay healthy its called nutrition, exercise and Genetics. Within the next 20 years we will be able to target the genes that make us age, and most likely extend our lives to 120 years.

A breakdown in health is the result of an imperfect system bar the natural clock, no system is EVER perfect. Its like a bug in a games coding. Thats one of the reasons why evolution exists, to try and improve an organic system. For example we still haven't evolved to walk on two feet properly, this is why we get bad backs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Name one Western doctor who has anything beyond the most superficial understanding of nutrition. Who asks for perfection? We'll never get it anyway. As Baron von Munchausen says "No doctors." They are blunderers just as they were in the 18th century when they were butts for lampoons.

Believe me, I'd never throw out Western science, or throw out the Enlightenment. I remember a phone call I received from a friend just as the Iranian revolution broke out in '79---"Thank God for the Enlightenment!" he said. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay so your telling me the guys who just developed a single vaccine for every type of flu known to man are blundering buffoons who know very little. The same people who have a cure for Alzheimer's in the works? The same people who discovered taking one/two aspirins a week slows down the advance of Parkinson's by as much as 50 percent? The same guys who worked out a system that corrected my ****ed up face as child? Yeah blunderers my ***. There is also a lot of good information on nutrition, scientists are even coming to think that wheat isn't all that good for humans.

Tell me just how qualified YOU are in the area of biomedical science? Or are you making these statements because of your own ignorant perceptions based on obsolete information and opinions?

Humans are capable of advancing technologically beyond most peoples wildest dreams and we'll witness some of this in our lifetime. We are JUST at the dawn of our understandings of life and the universe. There are literally small breakthroughs in science every week now. Exciting times.

[Huxley_S]

It's either going to be the first woman president or the first black president. Either way, history is going to be made and America is going to have a chance to win back all the respect it has lost throughout the world under the incompetence and short-sightedness of the Bush administration.

The irony is that only after this 8 years of catastrophic mismanagement could such a historic opportunity have presented itself, otherwise it would be more of the same middle-age, white male, baby-boomer idiots bringing their out-of-date, cold war mentality to face today's asymmetric challenges.

Roll on November.

[roybaty]

I'm an independent and don't like any of them, I personally think McCain will win in November.

[TC_Stele]

When you know you don't have a chance in hell you can make all the promises in the world.

[leitmotiv]

Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Might be helpful to recall that Darwin's cousin became a prophet of eugenics, and even Darwin himself was intellectually associated with this nasty science which led to so much horror in the 20th century. Darwin's theory is just that. No self-respecting scientist would claim it is beyond being tested. Another thing, in college some of my best friends were in physics, and they scoffed at atheists. They, above all, agree with Hamlet that there is more to existence "than your philosophy, Horatio." Mechanistic science is dead dreary and stultifying. I have seen too many bizarre things in my life to ever buy the mechanical explanations. Modern medicine is the accidental biggest critique of this. Doctors are fantastic at fixing broken parts, but they do not have a clue about how to help people stay healthy, and , if something goes wrong, their solution is to devastate the body with dangerous pharmaceutical drugs. A neurologist friend of mine said doctors know very little about what makes bodies fail, and that we overrate our knowledge of biology constantly.

Oh dear god, look up quantum physics. Thats more awe inspiring and less dreary than any religion I can think of.

And yes they do have a clue how to make people stay healthy its called nutrition, exercise and Genetics. Within the next 20 years we will be able to target the genes that make us age, and most likely extend our lives to 120 years.

A breakdown in health is the result of an imperfect system bar the natural clock, no system is EVER perfect. Its like a bug in a games coding. Thats one of the reasons why evolution exists, to try and improve an organic system. For example we still haven't evolved to walk on two feet properly, this is why we get bad backs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Name one Western doctor who has anything beyond the most superficial understanding of nutrition. Who asks for perfection? We'll never get it anyway. As Baron von Munchausen says "No doctors." They are blunderers just as they were in the 18th century when they were butts for lampoons.

Believe me, I'd never throw out Western science, or throw out the Enlightenment. I remember a phone call I received from a friend just as the Iranian revolution broke out in '79---"Thank God for the Enlightenment!" he said. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay so your telling me the guys who just developed a single vaccine for every type of flu known to man are blundering buffoons who know very little. The same people who have a cure for Alzheimer's in the works? The same people who discovered taking one/two aspirins a week slows down the advance of Parkinson's by as much as 50 percent? The same guys who worked out a system that corrected my ****ed up face as child? Yeah blunderers my ***. There is also a lot of good information on nutrition, scientists are even coming to think that wheat isn't all that good for humans.

Tell me just how qualified YOU are in the area of biomedical science? Or are you making these statements because of your own ignorant perceptions based on obsolete information and opinions?

Humans are capable of advancing technologically beyond most peoples wildest dreams and we'll witness some of this in our lifetime. We are JUST at the dawn of our understandings of life and the universe. There are literally small breakthroughs in science every week now. Exciting times. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Relax Airmail. I have a great deal of experience in medicine because I have been, literally, all over the world for treatments for a medical matter which science can't seem to cure, and has been ongoing for twenty-seven years. I have spent several fortunes on doctors. Thus, I lost the kind of optimism you have about science years ago, as you will, too, someday.

[Pirschjaeger]

Leit,

science is humble.

Science openly admits it can't give all the answers, but then again, that is not the goal of science anyway.

If you look at reality from a scientific view, every answer poses at least two questions. There can never be a final answer, but the search continues anyway.

Science still hasn't found the cure for cancer or AIDS. Should it give up?

It seems to me that you are looking at science from a biased POV. If you want to know what science is, then ask science.

Fritz

[MEGILE]

I can absolutly understand where Leitmotiv comes from, I get the feeling all the time.

Kind of.. as much as we know, we know nothing.

Sometimes we can trick the body into health, and we don't fully udnerstand why.

But on the other hand some advancements have been fantastic, and they continue.

Western Medicine is amazing at diagnostic procedures, but treatments can sometimes be lacking.

Then sometimes it can be kind of miraculous.

During my teens I had acne, not particularly severe, no pock marks etc, but it was persistant and wholly annoying.
Then one day, it dissapeared thanks to a drug called roacutane (not a nice drug by any means on the imagination).

Acne is an interesting one, because we aren't 100% sure why it happens. We know part of the mechanism (sebum production + acne bacteria), but the actual switch remains hidden.

Personally I suspect genetic suseptibility + Refined Carbohydrates. Acutane is derived from Vitamin A, and a blast of it lowers sebaceous gland activity IIRC.

This kind of stuff just makes me more determined to enter medicine. Hopefully sooner than later.

[leitmotiv]

Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Leit,

science is humble.

Science openly admits it can't give all the answers, but then again, that is not the goal of science anyway.

If you look at reality from a scientific view, every answer poses at least two questions. There can never be a final answer, but the search continues anyway.

Science still hasn't found the cure for cancer or AIDS. Should it give up?

It seems to me that you are looking at science from a biased POV. If you want to know what science is, then ask science.

Fritz

P, I think there is a misunderstanding here. I had a great deal of science in school, and I was even contemplating being a medical doctor or psychiatrist. Many of my close friends are scientists or doctors. However, all of us have had to confront that there are limits to what science can do. That is all. You and others seems to think I am some kind of irrationalist arguing for a return to shamans, etc. Could not be farther from the true. Believe it or not, I use the purest, undistilled scientific method in my work all the time!

I am on the side of Voltaire, believe me.

[leitmotiv]

Originally posted by Megile:
I can absolutly understand where Leitmotiv comes from, I get the feeling all the time.

Kind of.. as much as we know, we know nothing.

Sometimes we can trick the body into health, and we don't fully udnerstand why.

But on the other hand some advancements have been fantastic, and they continue.

Western Medicine is amazing at diagnostic procedures, but treatments can sometimes be lacking.

Then sometimes it can be kind of miraculous.

During my teens I had acne, not particularly severe, no pock marks etc, but it was persistant and wholly annoying.
Then one day, it dissapeared thanks to a drug called roacutane (not a nice drug by any means on the imagination).

Acne is an interesting one, because we aren't 100% sure why it happens. We know part of the mechanism (sebum production + acne bacteria), but the actual switch remains hidden.

Personally I suspect genetic suseptibility + Refined Carbohydrates. Acutane is derived from Vitamin A, and a blast of it lowers sebaceous gland activity IIRC.

This kind of stuff just makes me more determined to enter medicine. Hopefully sooner than later.

I have a very good friend who is a medical doctor. While in medical school, he was laid low by asthma. His condition was so severe his career appeared over before it began. He tried all the standard procedures of the time (late '60's) to no avail. He was advised to try a homeopath in Germany (at this time, the American Medical Association had coerced Congress to ban the practice of homeopathy in the United States). The homeopath cured him. My friend got his medical degree, and returned to Germany to be trained as a homeopath. He is now one of the major lecturers in homeopathy worldwide.

I've noticed that doctors who had to overcome big physical problems themselves tend to be the best. The healthy ones who had never had a sick day in their lives often have complete contempt for the ill (as did I until I was laid low---price of hubris).

[Pirschjaeger]

Megile,

when I met my wife she had a severe case of acne. She had been seeing doctors and taking various medicines bt nothing was working.

She decided to trust me and follow my advice. She stopped eating Chinese food, which is extremely unhealthy (the real stuff). She stopped taking the meds and started drinking small amounts of cucumber juice and lemon juice. I also sent her to the sauna 3 times a week. The results have been great.

Most don't realize that besides being a protection from the outside, the skin is also how we get rid of waste oil, among other wastes.

Two weeks ago I tore a hamsting. I know I tore it because half my leg turned black (internal bleeding). For almost a week I couldn't even walk (check my post count). Everyone was telling me I needed to go to the doctor, I needed xrays, I needed medice. Naturally, I didn't go.What the hell can a doctor do that I can't? I rested, massaged, and did light stretching routines.

Two weeks later I can walk almost normally again and my leg has turned to yellow, blue, purple, and green, indicating the bleeding didn't continue and that it was healing fine.

I always initially suspect doctors who prescribe medicine. In my opinion, medicine is to be prescribed when all else fails. Medicine is a last resort.

Leit,

maybe I mistook your post. Honestly I was surprised because you are always so rational. But I understand.

Fritz

[MEGILE]

WRT to Acne: I tried everything.

Even Chinese herbal tea (which tasted http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif).

I put of accutane for a long time because of the possible side effects. But in the end I took it, and truth be told I wish I had in the first place.

But the past is past, the futures now. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

[Pirschjaeger]

Never, ever take Chinese medicine. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Now there's a hoax if I've ever seen one. If Chinese medicine and food is so good, then why do Chinese eat much more than we do yet remain physically unhealthy (low muscle mass/ high fat)?

In the west, Chinese hair and skin is very good. In China, their hair and skin is terrible.

As for the Chinese medicine, maybe in the past but not now. The only good Chinese medicne you can find now is on a UFO flown by god.

7 years in China was more than enough to see just how wrong all the stereotypes were.

Fritz

[leitmotiv]

Homepathic sulphur is incredibly effective at healing skin problems and allergies. My London girlfriend told me she was given sulphur tablets when she was sick as a child (1950's). Of course, the first antibiotics, sulpha drugs, were derived from sulphur.

I had a real Chinese herbalist treat sinus trouble by pouring hydrochloric acid down my sinuses! I was in so much pain I would have confessed to anything. My nose was running constantly for a week. I was ruined. After all this, the treatment did nothing. I also tried acupuncture, and it never did a thing. An L.A. herbalist prepared a ginseng concoction for me which nearly blew my heart out of my chest---a friend of mine who has a Ph.D. in pharmacology was horrified. He said ginseng was deadly to the heart, and proven over and over by tests. He can't believe it isn't suppressed.

[MEGILE]

Knowing about homeopathy, the rational part of my brain just screams placebo.

The problem in these situations is, the successful patients will always be more vocal than the unlucky ones.

I know people have been treated by homeopathy, in seemingly miraculous treatments, but to be honest I wasn't that surprised when several double blind tests showed a success rate of the placebo level.

More interesting to me, is not that homeopathy (unsurprisingly) isn't a real medicine (just IMO), it is the signifcant role the brain plays in treating disease.

[Pirschjaeger]

Years ago I broke my shoulder and collar bone at the same time. I didn't seek proper medical attention. After a few years there were certion movements I couldn't do, due to the previous injuries. Finally I went to a doctor and he took some xrays and lectured me about seeing a doctor the next time I hurt myself. He wanted to start using cortizone shots.

Anyway, it was around the same time I had decided to move to China. I had heard all the hype about Chinese medicine and decided to not take the doctor's advice. Not long after arriving in China I asked a famous Chinese traditional medicine doctor about my shoulder. He said it was no problem and easy for Chinese medicine to solve the issue. I was so happy to hear this. Then I asked how long the treatment would take. He said about 2 years. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Now, I was in China for 7 years and I have never met anyone who was cured by Chinese medicine. In fact, some I have met have actually died.

I could tell many horror stories about what I've seen from Chinese medicine. Trust me on this, avoid Chinese medicine. Chinese doctors do not study Latin and they only need 3 to 5 years of university.

As for ginseng, it is of no use to healthy people. In fact it is quite the opposite. Ginseng, and in only certain cases, is useful for elderly people.

Nothing is healthier than knowledge. If you become ill, a simple 1/2 search on the net can really educate you.

Last fall my wife, at 2.5 months pregnant, became very ill and was vomiting accessively. I suspected food poisoning. I turned on the pc and did a quick google search with "food poisoning symptoms" followed by "food poisoning pregnancy" and I am very thankful I did.

First, do not eat when you have food poisoning It makes perfect sense since you don't want to feed the bacteria.

Second, pregnant women should never have anti-biotics unless it's a matter of life and death.

I told my wife we needed to go to the hospital and have her blood, urine, and stool tested to identify the bacteria. But I told her not to take anything the doctor wants to give her. I also predicted that the doctor will want to abort the baby to harvest the stem cells.

As soon as we got to the doctor, she used a stethoscope to listen to my wife's stomach. The doctor immediately said something was wrong with the baby. Then she asked for a urine sample and upon looking at it (visually) she proclaimed the baby needed to be aborted and my wife was to be put on antibiotics introveneously.

At this point I was as close as I'd ever been to killing someone. I took my wife from the hospital. She was extremely upset and crying about the prospect of lossing the baby.

The next day I took her to another doctor and ordered an ultra-sound. The doctor doing the ultra-sound said tha baby was active and even a little larger than normal.

If I hadn't been there they would have killed our baby so quickly. China has rules about medicine and ethics but they are not enforced. Money is the name of the game and stem cells catch a good price in China.

Stay far away from Chinese medicine and their practices.

Fritz

[leitmotiv]

Originally posted by Megile:
Knowing about homeopathy, the rational part of my brain just screams placebo.

The problem in these situations is, the successful patients will always be more vocal than the unlucky ones.

I know people have been treated by homeopathy, in seemingly miraculous treatments, but to be honest I wasn't that surprised when several double blind tests showed a success rate of the placebo level.

More interesting to me, is not that homeopathy (unsurprisingly) isn't a real medicine (just IMO), it is the signifcant role the brain plays in treating disease.

A British Royal Commission found homeopathic methods succeeded when all others failed during a (I believe it was a) cholera epidemic in London in the 19th century. My primary gripe with homeopathy is that the remedies are antidoted too easily. I had the mother of all prostate infections which was deemed incurable after conventional treatments completely failed. Talk was moving towards removal (bloody hell! eunuchdom!). A famous homeopath, whom I knew, prescribed a remedy which clobbered the infection in short order. Never underrate the odd. There is no denying there are a lot of cranks. I used to go to Ainsworth's in London (supplier to the Royal Family) to get my remedies. One morning a very wealthy (enough real furs to clothe a regiment) lady was peremptorily telling the pharmacist that her cat had informed her telepathically he required such-and-such a remedy. I admired the pharmacist for maintaining a straight face. I know a lot of people in the UK think homeopathy is rum because the Royal Family is sold on it, but it has a record going back 200 years in Germany, where it started, and, more tellingly, it was so successful in the United States in the second decade of the 20th century it was used by more people than conventional medicine. The story of how the American Medical Association used bribery to get Congress to ban homeopathy in, I believe, 1917 is one of the most unsavory in our unsavory political history.

[roybaty]

How did we go from Ron Paul to this http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

[MEGILE]

Originally posted by roybaty:
How did we go from Ron Paul to this http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Stream of consciousness

[joeap]

Well, I know acupuncture helped with an eczema flare-up a couple of years ago.

Lately I have joined a fitness club and try to use the sauna and turkish bath, really helps my skin. Exercise and eating healthier food helps too.

[Airmail109]

Originally posted by joeap:
Well, I know acupuncture helped with an eczema flare-up a couple of years ago.

Lately I have joined a fitness club and try to use the sauna and turkish bath, really helps my skin. Exercise and eating healthier food helps too.

Dont know about the first bit, but the last paragraph are all widely accepted treatments for skin problems such as acne.

Dont however listen to anyone who says getting lots of sun helps acne, it may kill the spots but it kills something else in the skin (forget what it is) that helps to keep them under control.

[joeap]

Never heard that thoguh I personally never had an acne problem, my dermatologist told me that sun (in moderation of course) helps eczema however.

[Airmail109]

Originally posted by joeap:
Never heard that thoguh I personally never had an acne problem, my dermatologist told me that sun (in moderation of course) helps eczema however.

Cool!

Funny though, I did more or less the same thing as you and my acne cleared up.

Personally I think DHT is the cause of Acne. Exercise except wight-lifting lowers the amount of it running round your bloodstream, perhaps diet does as well.

Perhaps doctors should be prescribing patients propecia if they can instead of powerful anti-biotics. Who knows, its interesting though.