SeVeR

There's a difference between Clinton and the Republicans?

Right-wing propaganda strikes again...

It's funny how these negative ideas seep into people's minds isn't it? Ron Paul is crazy and Obama is inexperienced, we've all heard it. It's like these opinions are hammered into our heads. Where does it come from, and who is saying it? Oh that's right, the media.. Put an end to political propaganda in America.

There's alot more to this than just charity. If you can turn a third world country into your private oil factory, then a little aid into the pockets of a fat landowner will go a long way. Hahahahaha. Helping folks live a decent life? Oh the comedy...

I agree with you Aileron, it is a bit paranoid of Chavez, and he was obviously making a political statement by doing what he did. You can keep saying offense/defense doesn't matter, when you were the one who implied an offensive intent from Venezuela. My post was merely a criticism of such an !@#$%^&*umption.

Oh how was it? I still can't get into the zone, and i've been having problems accessing this forum lately. It seems that fate is conspiring to keep me away from 17th.

Here here!! Oh dear lord! What have you done with the real Aileron?

How about: "Venezuela takes defensive posture after Colombian aggression" This is surely closer to the truth. Colombia has made an aggressive move, and Venezuela has strengthened their defenses so that the same doesn't happen to them. Ecuador, Venezuela and Nicaragua are all in agreement about what Colombia has done. So which headline would you go for: "Venezuela takes defensive posture" or "Venezuela prepares to invade"? When France strengthened their Maginot line by deploying all their forces along the German border, what was their intent? When America deploys forces along the Mexican border, what is their intent: to invade Mexico or defend their border from illegals? It's quite clear to me, it should be to you.

After listening to far too many right-wing propagandist statements, it appears that you are now making your own up. Venezuela is "preparing to invade" Colombia? That's news to me. If in any of your news sources you have evidence of an intent to invade, then please come out with it. Otherwise i suggest you re-word the topic.

The point was obviously NOT to say America should have supported Communism; it was to say America should stop supporting fascist dictatorships. America clearly doesn't value democracy when dictatorships are easier to deal with. Money trumps democracy.

Houses are over-priced in America? Should come to the UK, they're twice as high, and i'm not exagerating.

America has history of supporting fascist dictatorships rather than communist ones. Freedom isn't on the foregin policy agenda, right-wing politics is.

Castro brought a world class health service and a first-rate education system to a developing country in the face of strict economic sanctions from the US and her allies, he will be sorely missed among Cubans. Castro's retirement is a kick in the face for the dominant country of the region, who for decades had sought his forceful removal from office. The ideological reasons for this `State-side' aggression are beyond criminal, and their astronomical failure will go down in history as an example of justice served.

If looking like an idiot were a precursor for failing to become President, then GWB wouldn't have gotten very far. I want Obama to win because i can't stand Hillary either. I'm someone who doesn't see alot of differences between Hillary and the Republicans.

I have to agree with Aileron on that last point. I would have voted for Ron Paul even though he is pro-gun, anti-abortion and has been known to question evolution. One man's view on these issues means next to nothing. The economy and foreign policy are far bigger nuts to crack. I disagree with Aileron on just about everything else. I wasn't in the least bit surprised when you said "I don't like Obama". The thought occurred to me that the less corrupt someone is, the less you like them. Biologists won't address the concerns of religionists about evolution for so many reasons. The obvious one is: How can someone question a scientific theory when they believe in an alternate theory that is based on no scientific explanation whatsoever. Hypocrisy comes all to easy to a Christian. Secondly, there is a big reason for religionists to attempt to pick holes in evolution, and no reason for biologists to be bias in favour of evolution - so who is full of !@#$%^&*? Finally, a biologist doesn't claim evolution as fact. If only Christians knew what "theory" meant, we'd all get along fine. Evolution is incomplete, but we have alot of evidence in support of it. All religionists can do is say "there is a piece missing here", as if this missing piece hasn't had hundreds of scientific papers written about it already. It's why it's a theory. Oh, and then come the intelligent design wackos who got their !@#$%^&*es handed to them in a court of law. They tried to prove that something had to be designed and were proven wrong; such is the desperation of religionists to discredit evolution. If there was one shred of evidence AGAINST evolution then i'd be with you. There is no alternate theory.

Alot of what Ail said about Hillary makes sense. She does think she's owed the Presidency in my opinion. If she wasn't called Clinton then she wouldn't be where she is. And yes, they've been planning to put her on the throne for quite some time. I don't want to see the Bush-Clinton dynasty continue for any longer. Get Obama in there.

The key word here is belief, what does it mean? For me a belief is to think you know something with certainty. I'm not sure if that's what you think it means. In my opinion Newton believed in his laws of motion with certainty. The difference between Atheists and Newton is that all the evidence confirmed Newton's findings. (in fact Newton's laws are still very nearly accurate for small relative velocities, and this is afterall the realm in which Newton did his experiments). Newton, if alive today, would probably alter his beliefs, as would you if God proved his own existence. The difference is you have no evidence to support your belief that God doesn't exist. Newton had a wealth of evidence for his laws. I don't think you or any Atheist has reason to believe God, as an invisible, non-interacting en!@#$%^&*y, doesn't exist. The reason is that it's impossible to have evidence against an en!@#$%^&*y such as this. Although as you rightly mention, it's inconsequential. I looked into atheism a little more. Some people define atheism as an absence of belief in Gods, but this would include agnostics. Others call a belief in the non-existence of God, strong atheism, while weak atheism is an absence of belief in Gods. By this definition weak atheism would include agnostics. There seems to be an overlap. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html

Are you saying that a God needs to have given evidence for his existence in order for humans to postulate he exists? That's not a bad proposition. A God who's only deed is the Big Bang has given no such evidence, whereas the Christian God has apparently given us plenty of evidence to evaluate. You are right in a way. I would reword it to say: A God that has given no evidence of his existence is unimportant, but we may postulate all we like. If Atheism were to define "God" in a way that makes it possible to believe he doesn't exist, then i would be all for it. The key point is, it's impossible to believe in the non-existence of an en!@#$%^&*y that gives no evidence of it's existence, and although any debate on the subject would be a pointless endevour, atheism needs to make a distinction. I was happy to learn that Carl Sagan is with me on this one, as would be any self-respecting scientist. Then i am not an atheist. I'm anti-religious. How anyone who understands logic and probability can rationally say that supernatural en!@#$%^&*ies do no exist, is beyond me. Do we conclude that magnetic monopoles do not exist? They may be out there awaiting our discovery. To conclude they don't exist would be to stop looking for them. You don't look for something that you know doesn't exist. Belief is a strange word. Someone might think/theorise that magnetic monopoles don't exist, but believing it? No. If you believe something without evidence for it, then you are irrational.

Thanks for the youtube link. I understand a little more about transgender people now. Still i agree with TJ, gender should be defined biologically. Only after someone has had "the snip" can you be sure they're serious. With kids like the one in the video, you can never be sure they're serious until they're older.

TJ: When people cannot explain things, they fill the gap by believing what they want to believe. People want to believe there is a God out there helping them. To give in to such urges is to give into temptation (another religious hypocrisy), it compromises one's rationality. Who's to say whether we'll know after we die. Death could be yet another plain of existence in which God doesn't reveal himself to us. We could just cease to be, and then we still wouldn't know, since there would be no mind to comprehend such a question.

Bak, there is evidence i am not hallucinating. As a human being i define myself as existing in a conscious reality, and i can therefore discern between reality and hallucinatory experiences to some finite level of accuracy. Therefore my perception of my experiences is evidence. You might say that my entire life could be a hallucination. This could be true, but then hallucinations would cons!@#$%^&*ute my reality, and from that definition of reality i would have to define my hallucinations as something different (it's all relative). On the subject of God, let me elaborate on my comments: When i say "devoid of all anthro-religious symbolism" i am implying the God's of the Bible/Qu'ran/etc can be dis-creditted by having direct links to humanity. They are defined in ways that cater to our needs, and are subject to our history; we even give them human emotions. In a way i'm saying the Bible, by being flawed and subject to the human culture of the time, makes the Christian God less likely to exist. The same goes for any other "Earthly" God. If we are talking about a God who's only deed is the creation of the Big Bang (the oldest known cause and the last refuge of religion), then we cannot assign any degree of likelihood to it's existence. We have no idea what happened before the Big Bang. To say otherwise is to be emotionally and irrationally anti-religious, or what i like to call atheism. It's like saying there is definitely no such thing as anti-gravity or magnetic monopoles. Until we discover them, we just don't know.

It seems that for you, agnostic means 50/50. The probability that the sky is blue and we're not hallucinating is not 50/50, we can almost be certain the sky is blue. Of course there is still some minute possibility that it isn't, and that must be acknowledged for the purpose of dispelling certainty. However, i do not acknowledge this in my every day life, since it is irrelevent and inconsequential. God, once devoid of all anthro-religious symbolism has no evidence for his existence one way or the other. This en!@#$%^&*y must be 50/50. I may not be saying "no" with confidence, and i am quite happy to do that. I am however saying "no" to "no" with every confidence.

This is an important question. The definition of God makes any test of his non-existence almost impossible to carry out. For as long as there are unknowns there will always be a God to fill the gaps. This doesn't make me any less anti-christian, i'm simply being logical. Ask yourself: Does an all-powerful, invisible, timeless en!@#$%^&*y exist? How could you ever say no with confidence.

I am agnostic about the existence of unicorns, santa and the easter bunny. I don't see how one couldn't be; there is no proof that they don't exist. There is simply not alot of evidence to evaluate when it comes to these characters, and thus, the question of their existence does not require alot of attention. One can look at the roots of the myth; often these characters arise from fictional stories, proving that the question of their existence is trival and a waste of time. Furthermore, what definition of the word unicorn would satisfy your idea of a unicorn's physical representation. It is entirrely possible that life developed in this way at some point, maybe not on this world, but on another.

God may respect those who take the logical standpoint based on the evidence he has provided. Afterall, if God built the universe then we are respecting his creation by investigating it and discovering it's truths. Science has allowed us to see much of the universe, so why not approach the question of God's existence in the same logical way? Simply, if God wanted us to know he exists then he would give us proof of his existence. If he wanted us to have "faith" then why would he create a vast universe for us to investigate in ways where faith is not a requirement. Thus I am an agnostic, and if there is a God, then i expect he will respect my decision above those who had faith. If anyone comes to believe in God out of a fear of !@#$%^&*, then they are cowards, and any God that rewards them for that decision is not a God worth my time.