There's a whole lot of off-topic stupid in this thread. I demand that the stupidity return to the relative pros and cons of the candidates as it pertains to the upcoming debate, not whether Scientologists are lamer than Mormons.
Because of course they are. Mormonism brought us a hilarious South Park episode, whereas Scientology gave us Battlefield Earth.
Also, I think I will actually be able to watch this debate.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Sadly Thompson is not debating. He's about the only real conservative in the bunch. Not that I particularly care for him but he'd serve well at make these neo-con bootlickers and extremsit nutjobs look ike jackasses.
There's a whole lot of off-topic stupid in this thread. I demand that the stupidity return to the relative pros and cons of the candidates as it pertains to the upcoming debate, not whether Scientologists are lamer than Mormons.
Because of course they are. Mormonism brought us a hilarious South Park episode, whereas Scientology gave us Battlefield Earth.
Also, I think I will actually be able to watch this debate.
To be fair, there was a pretty good Scientology South Park episode.
I'm also looking forward to this debate, since I enjoyed the Democratic one so much. But if it's just another rehash of Reagan necrophilia and 9/11 flogging, I'll pretty much stop paying attention to the Republicans altogether.
Sadly Thompson is not debating. He's about the only real conservative in the bunch. Not that I particularly care for him but he'd serve well at make these neo-con bootlickers and extremsit nutjobs look ike jackasses.
I'm still not entirely sure about the logic in not jumping into a race until after all of the debates that serve to showcase your positions, qualifications, and demeanor. Thompson is a smart guy, he's well-spoken, and his positions are defensible. I could see his reluctance if he sucked on camera, or had no idea what he was talking about.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
There's a whole lot of off-topic stupid in this thread. I demand that the stupidity return to the relative pros and cons of the candidates as it pertains to the upcoming debate, not whether Scientologists are lamer than Mormons.
Because of course they are. Mormonism brought us a hilarious South Park episode, whereas Scientology gave us Battlefield Earth.
Also, I think I will actually be able to watch this debate.
Well, I stand by my criticism of Ron Paul. And its fun watching his defenders claim that "see, he really doesn't believe in what was said in his name", as if that's supposed to make him MORE electable.
He scares me a bit because he's the only Pub who I think actually stands a chance in a national election.
Aksi Jeffe seeing as he was a decent actor I doubt public speaking is his weakness. Maybe he just wanted to let the other guys make asses of themselves on thier own then jump in to save the day.
I'm still not entirely sure about the logic in not jumping into a race until after all of the debates that serve to showcase your positions, qualifications, and demeanor. Thompson is a smart guy, he's well-spoken, and his positions are defensible. I could see his reluctance if he sucked on camera, or had no idea what he was talking about.
The hype wears off when you are actually down in the trenches campaigning.
Four months ago Obama was this sparkling magic possibility coming to save us from Hillary. Now, while he is indeed polling very well, he is just another candidate.
So with Thompson. He looks a lot more magical right now than he will in October.
There's a whole lot of off-topic stupid in this thread. I demand that the stupidity return to the relative pros and cons of the candidates as it pertains to the upcoming debate, not whether Scientologists are lamer than Mormons.
Because of course they are. Mormonism brought us a hilarious South Park episode, whereas Scientology gave us Battlefield Earth.
Also, I think I will actually be able to watch this debate.
To be fair, there was a pretty good Scientology South Park episode.
I'm still not entirely sure about the logic in not jumping into a race until after all of the debates that serve to showcase your positions, qualifications, and demeanor. Thompson is a smart guy, he's well-spoken, and his positions are defensible. I could see his reluctance if he sucked on camera, or had no idea what he was talking about.
The hype wears off when you are actually down in the trenches campaigning.
Four months ago Obama was this sparkling magic possibility coming to save us from Hillary. Now, while he is indeed polling very well, he is just another candidate.
So with Thompson. He looks a lot more magical right now than he will in October.
Eh, I suppose. Me, I'd be much more impressed if I could see him get up there and hold his own against the pathetic offerings on stage, but I suppose the fact that they're all pathetic is to his advantage.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
There's a whole lot of off-topic stupid in this thread. I demand that the stupidity return to the relative pros and cons of the candidates as it pertains to the upcoming debate, not whether Scientologists are lamer than Mormons.
Because of course they are. Mormonism brought us a hilarious South Park episode, whereas Scientology gave us Battlefield Earth.
Also, I think I will actually be able to watch this debate.
What would you say if I could show you a presidential candidate who was both Mormon and professed Battlefield Earth to be his favorite book?
I agree with Thompson getting in some debates. It'd be nice to see him really digging in with others of intelligence on the issues. The reason I don't really miss him too much from these primary debates is that they're pretty useless. The moderators have mostly been it for themselves (not the guys on Fox who I'd expected to do more grandstanding than they did).
It's almost nice seeing him staying out of it because he's giving policy speeches and still issuing his belief as to what conservatism is. He's laying out his ideological foundations before he gets into the nuts and bolts of the campaign.
I would like to see a forum that allows the candidates to eagerly discuss and debate the various ideas of conservatism, how they work, their weaknesses and strengths just because I really believe that when people learn more about conservatism and how it works, more people become converts to it. With the debates being what they are, it's not happening, the questions get asked, the answers are soundbitish and don't ever give any historical understanding of the question or why their answer is the right answer.
Why is abolishing the IRS an such a negative sticking point? If he (Ron Paul) reintroduces a commodity backed currency, such as with the gold standard, and nixes The Federal Reserve, adheres to his non-interventionist foreign policy, along with other methods that together would significantly reduce inflation, the current account deficit, and the size and scope of the federal government, why wouldn't he abolish the income tax?
I mean, I'm not saying he should or shouldn't necessarily... but it certainly ties in with all his other positions, so I don't see why people point to that specific thing as some kind of stand-out crazy idea. His integrity in regards to government spending, the constitution, and his knowledge and ideas relating to foreign policy are all pretty compelling, from what I've seen so far in reading up on him -- he's not without his flaws in regards to his support for more right-wing social beliefs (to me anyway that is, although I doubt he would legislate them in the vein of neocons), but he's by far the most interesting candidate the GOP has right now.
Ant000 on
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
Why is abolishing the IRS an such a negative sticking point? If he (Ron Paul) reintroduces a commodity backed currency, such as with the gold standard, and nixes The Federal Reserve, adheres to his non-interventionist foreign policy, along with other methods that together would significantly reduce inflation and the size and scope of the federal government, why wouldn't he abolish the income tax?
I mean, I'm not saying he should or shouldn't necessarily, although it sounds pretty compelling in a lot of ways... but it certainly ties in with all his other positions, so I don't see why people point to that specific thing as some kind of stand-out crazy idea.
You don't want your national currency tied to a specific commodity, however stable it might be. Any day, some guy, anywhere on Earth, might stumble upon some massive deposit of said commodity and boom, uncontrolled inflation, devalued currency. That's kind of why the gold standard got killed off in the first place.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
You also want some inflation to occur. That is why all of the crazies at the turn of the century wanted free silver coining.
Well, yeah. Tying things to a commodity takes it out of your hands. If people find gold at a normal rate, it's fine. But if nobody finds any new deposits for a while, you stagnate. And if someone finds a fleet of pirate ships or something, you get something closer to hyperinflation, which is all kinds of bad.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Why is abolishing the IRS an such a negative sticking point? If he (Ron Paul) reintroduces a commodity backed currency, such as with the gold standard, and nixes The Federal Reserve, adheres to his non-interventionist foreign policy, along with other methods that together would significantly reduce inflation, the current account deficit, and the size and scope of the federal government, why wouldn't he abolish the income tax?
I mean, I'm not saying he should or shouldn't necessarily... but it certainly ties in with all his other positions, so I don't see why people point to that specific thing as some kind of stand-out crazy idea. His integrity in regards to government spending, the constitution, and his knowledge and ideas relating to foreign policy are all pretty compelling, from what I've seen so far in reading up on him -- he's not without his flaws in regards to his support for more right-wing social beliefs (to me anyway that is, although I doubt he would legislate them in the vein of neocons), but he's by far the most interesting candidate the GOP has right now.
The nixing of the IRS is only one facet of his broad craziness, though I agree that it's entirely consistent within the general theme of "batshit insane".
It really bugs me that Giuliani has had multiple affairs and divorces. I wouldn't vote for him because of that alone (assuming I agreed with Republicans in the first place).
Then again, it also bugs me that people are willing to dismiss somebody for being Mormon, so who knows.
I think the reason a lot of people do dismiss Mormons is because they assume anyone who is a Mormon must be inherently stupid because their religion goes against historical facts.
That's why I reject Mormonism.
You should reject Mormonism because its a freaking cult, that it goes against history is icing on the cake.
It really bugs me that Giuliani has had multiple affairs and divorces. I wouldn't vote for him because of that alone (assuming I agreed with Republicans in the first place).
Then again, it also bugs me that people are willing to dismiss somebody for being Mormon, so who knows.
I think the reason a lot of people do dismiss Mormons is because they assume anyone who is a Mormon must be inherently stupid because their religion goes against historical facts.
That's why I reject Mormonism.
You should reject Mormonism because its a freaking cult, that it goes against history is icing on the cake.
I'm not sure what's so special about cults. Does the age of a fantastical belief lend it authenticity? Astrology has been around for a while, but Nancy Reagan is still retarded for believing in it.
Loren Michael on
0
Options
HarrierThe Star Spangled ManRegistered Userregular
edited June 2007
Thompson or Gingrich are the only people I'd actually watch these early debates for. No sign of them yet, so I'll just read the recaps on CNN.com.
Harrier on
I don't wanna kill anybody. I don't like bullies. I don't care where they're from.
Professor Phobes: It's thorny, but I still disagree. People have managed to privately reconcile their creationism with their support of evolution for decades. So long as you're overtly pro-evolution, you can keep whatever religious ideas you want in your other coat pocket. Even contradictory ones. Really, people have been reconciling their faith with their reason going back to the Enlightenment. It's not something new.
And Katholic, are you saying you won't vote for a Mormon because Catholicism/Protestantism/Judaism are more accepted and mainstream than Mormonism? I just want you to confirm that for me.
No, I would not vote for someone whose views are too extreme and inane and might cause problems: Mormons, Protestant fundies, or Catholic fundies. If I did feel like they truely could be an amazing candidate I would swallow that bitter pill.
Romney being Mormon doesn't bother me. Romney being a hardcore neocon when it comes to foreign policy and not knowing a damn thing about the middle east bothers me.
It really bugs me that Giuliani has had multiple affairs and divorces. I wouldn't vote for him because of that alone (assuming I agreed with Republicans in the first place).
Then again, it also bugs me that people are willing to dismiss somebody for being Mormon, so who knows.
I think the reason a lot of people do dismiss Mormons is because they assume anyone who is a Mormon must be inherently stupid because their religion goes against historical facts.
That's why I reject Mormonism.
You should reject Mormonism because its a freaking cult, that it goes against history is icing on the cake.
I'm not sure what's so special about cults. Does the age of a fantastical belief lend it authenticity? Astrology has been around for a while, but Nancy Reagan is still retarded for believing in it.
The thing is is that unlike most other religions, we have historical evidence documenting all of the founders' bullshit. With Christianity, you can't prove using newspapers and other evidence that Jesus was really a complete jackass. It is also harder to bullshit and say that he meant it figuratively when you have the founder's words on what he meant.
Couscous on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
I'm not sure what's so special about cults. Does the age of a fantastical belief lend it authenticity? Astrology has been around for a while, but Nancy Reagan is still retarded for believing in it.
I am sympathetic to your rejection of Astrology, but not to your project of grouping all unreasonable beliefs together as equivalent. It strikes me as highly absurd to claim that there's no way to differentiate among unreasonable beliefs with regards to factors such as how strongly the average adherent believes, how insane the tenant, how irrelevant to policy, and so on.
It really bugs me that Giuliani has had multiple affairs and divorces. I wouldn't vote for him because of that alone (assuming I agreed with Republicans in the first place).
Then again, it also bugs me that people are willing to dismiss somebody for being Mormon, so who knows.
I think the reason a lot of people do dismiss Mormons is because they assume anyone who is a Mormon must be inherently stupid because their religion goes against historical facts.
That's why I reject Mormonism.
You should reject Mormonism because its a freaking cult, that it goes against history is icing on the cake.
I'm not sure what's so special about cults. Does the age of a fantastical belief lend it authenticity? Astrology has been around for a while, but Nancy Reagan is still retarded for believing in it.
I'm not sure what's so special about cults. Does the age of a fantastical belief lend it authenticity? Astrology has been around for a while, but Nancy Reagan is still retarded for believing in it.
I am sympathetic to your rejection of Astrology, but not to your project of grouping all unreasonable beliefs together as equivalent. It strikes me as highly absurd to claim that there's no way to differentiate among unreasonable beliefs with regards to factors such as how strongly the average adherent believes, how insane the tenant, how irrelevant to policy, and so on.
Still most of the reverence attached to religions are tethered ot thier age. If someone came up to you can started saying Biblical events like they were happening today you'd call them fucking nuts. If someone claimed to have come back from the dead or get instructions directly from God you'd call them a liar or a lunatic. But since the bible happens in a mythical time we know little about suddenly ridiculous events become acceptable. Cults have ridiculous ideas that occur in modern times thus they get ridiculed much quicker than established faiths.
Let's not forget that the Romans considered Christians to be a cult too.
I take it we are just meaning "cult" as a derogatory word for a religion we don't like?
Because I've always used it a little more specifically to mean a religious group that demands unhealthy exorbitant control over the money and personal lives of its adherents.
Shinto on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
I take it we are just meaning "cult" as a derogatory word for a religion we don't like?
Because I've always used it a little more specifically to mean a religious group that demands unhealthy exorbitant control over the money and personal lives of its adherents.
That being your operative definition, you really should look more into the financial and personal control of the Mormons and Scientologists.
I take it we are just meaning "cult" as a derogatory word for a religion we don't like?
Because I've always used it a little more specifically to mean a religious group that demands unhealthy exorbitant control over the money and personal lives of its adherents.
That being your operative definition, you really should look more into the financial and personal control of the Mormons and Scientologists.
Meh. I doubt the Mormons come up across the line although I understand they are very authoritarian.
Why is abolishing the IRS an such a negative sticking point? If he (Ron Paul) reintroduces a commodity backed currency, such as with the gold standard, and nixes The Federal Reserve, adheres to his non-interventionist foreign policy, along with other methods that together would significantly reduce inflation and the size and scope of the federal government, why wouldn't he abolish the income tax?
I mean, I'm not saying he should or shouldn't necessarily, although it sounds pretty compelling in a lot of ways... but it certainly ties in with all his other positions, so I don't see why people point to that specific thing as some kind of stand-out crazy idea.
You don't want your national currency tied to a specific commodity, however stable it might be. Any day, some guy, anywhere on Earth, might stumble upon some massive deposit of said commodity and boom, uncontrolled inflation, devalued currency. That's kind of why the gold standard got killed off in the first place.
Fair enough, but isn't that volatility easily countered then by using say a basket of commodities or something like that then instead? While still effectively pulling in the reigns on the government spending outside of the country's means?
I always thought the gold standard was abandoned (and this is a simplified account) because the government was spending outside it's means and was getting called on it with increased frequency by it's currency/debt holders, and in recognizing the gap between gold in reserve and it's potential gold obligations that arose out of that overspending/creation of credit (basically ignoring the point of a backed currency), decided they pretty much had to nix it. I could be wrong on that....but as my knowledge of it stands, it certainly sounds like a more appealing system than the one where a privately owned organization debases the US dollar by non-stop money printing to pay for unbalanced trade and gigantic domestic budget deficits while destroying people's wealth.
Also, I still think it would be cool if people explained why they felt why getting rid of income tax is batshit insane. Again I'm not saying I personally think it isn't insane, but as someone who wants to form an opinion on the matter and someone who is intrigued by Ron Paul's ideas, and this being a discussion thread... maybe some elaboration is in order. Is it because the decrease in revenues would prevent the federal government from taking on the kind of roles you believe it's responsible for? I'm just curious is all -- at least to me it doesn't jump out as something automatically crazy....maybe I'm just crazy too .
Ant000 on
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
Professor Phobes: It's thorny, but I still disagree. People have managed to privately reconcile their creationism with their support of evolution for decades. So long as you're overtly pro-evolution, you can keep whatever religious ideas you want in your other coat pocket. Even contradictory ones. Really, people have been reconciling their faith with their reason going back to the Enlightenment. It's not something new.
No, you don't understand. The word "Creationism" refers to a specific (well, a specific pair of) beliefs- Young Earth Creationism, and Old Earth Creationism.
Both reject Evolution. Period, full stop.
Reconciling faith with evolution is called "Theistic Evolution"- evolution is a fact and happened, but like everything else, God made it.
If someone identifies as a creationist, then they identify themselves as rejecting evolution as fact. Or they are ignorant of the term.
And if they're just concealing their true beliefs to get elected, that's not really that much better- because again, as far as I am concerned, the rejection of the fact of evolution, privately or publicly, is indicative of a broken mind.
And if they're just concealing their true beliefs to get elected, that's not really that much better- because again, as far as I am concerned, the rejection of the fact of evolution, privately or publicly, is indicative of a broken mind.
But the problem with that is that there are intelligent, socially functional people who believe in Creationism. My father in law believes that the Grand Canyon is the product of Noah's flood. But he's not an idiot, he just doesn't question anything that comes from a source that's proven reliable to his mind.
He also believes in the literal reading of Revelation as a prophecy of the future. It's damn strange, but honestly, I don't think he's broken.
I take it we are just meaning "cult" as a derogatory word for a religion we don't like?
Because I've always used it a little more specifically to mean a religious group that demands unhealthy exorbitant control over the money and personal lives of its adherents.
Most people do not choose their words and carefully as you do.
I am sympathetic to your rejection of Astrology, but not to your project of grouping all unreasonable beliefs together as equivalent. It strikes me as highly absurd to claim that there's no way to differentiate among unreasonable beliefs with regards to factors such as how strongly the average adherent believes, how insane the tenant, how irrelevant to policy, and so on.
Oh, I'm perfectly aware that there are varying degrees of unreason, partitioning one's mind, and so on.
I'll vote for anyone, so long as I don't think their more inane views will color their policy. I feel that the mainstream of the Democratic party has pretty much been reduced to paying lip service to religious causes, with a few asinine outliers like Jimmy Carter. I feel that homophobia, as it exists in the Democratic mainstream, is rapidly becoming reduced to something akin to "I'm homophobic, but I support the rights of gay people".
Not so in the Republican party. They have fully integrated religion into their political machinery, and it has essentially replaced (mostly) racism as the retarded dogma to flog people to the voting booths.
Astrology, and the kind of person who adheres to it (extreme leftist mystics, in my experience) doesn't cause me to draw a huge distinction between it and any cute, cultish religion. Their views on civil liberties are generally acceptable to me (as they tend to be liberal), but their views on science, education, and foreign policy are often warped through ignorance and irrationality.
I would vote for a candidate on his beliefs and specific ideas. I wouldn't slap a label on and go "Olol Scientologist, so no vote from me!" If he were a scientologist, but at the same time had awesome domestic and foreign policies, well then, he'd get my vote.
Hey, Bobby Fischer is a supergenius at logic puzzles. With training it isn't a stretch to imagine he could become a brilliant military strategist. In spit of the fact that he believes that "America must be destroyed", lets have him work on our defense strategy. Its not like his private personal convictions are relevant to his job as a tactician.
Hey, this Presidential Candidate is a pretty great statesman. He also believes in a slew of things for which there is no rational justification, many of which are utterly and completely falsifiable by science, yet he continues to believe them anyway. He also believes that dead alien spirits are the source of human suffering and that pharmaceuticals are evil (or that God is directing your life and that Jesus is landing again in the near future to make it all OK for us). Lets vote him into office during a time where global warming, stem cell research, abortion, Zionism, radical Islam, poverty, starvation and other such issues demand constant address. Its not like his personal convictions are relevant to his job as the worlds most important decision maker.
Posts
Because of course they are. Mormonism brought us a hilarious South Park episode, whereas Scientology gave us Battlefield Earth.
Also, I think I will actually be able to watch this debate.
To be fair, there was a pretty good Scientology South Park episode.
I'm also looking forward to this debate, since I enjoyed the Democratic one so much. But if it's just another rehash of Reagan necrophilia and 9/11 flogging, I'll pretty much stop paying attention to the Republicans altogether.
I'm still not entirely sure about the logic in not jumping into a race until after all of the debates that serve to showcase your positions, qualifications, and demeanor. Thompson is a smart guy, he's well-spoken, and his positions are defensible. I could see his reluctance if he sucked on camera, or had no idea what he was talking about.
Aksi Jeffe seeing as he was a decent actor I doubt public speaking is his weakness. Maybe he just wanted to let the other guys make asses of themselves on thier own then jump in to save the day.
The hype wears off when you are actually down in the trenches campaigning.
Four months ago Obama was this sparkling magic possibility coming to save us from Hillary. Now, while he is indeed polling very well, he is just another candidate.
So with Thompson. He looks a lot more magical right now than he will in October.
Eh, I suppose. Me, I'd be much more impressed if I could see him get up there and hold his own against the pathetic offerings on stage, but I suppose the fact that they're all pathetic is to his advantage.
What would you say if I could show you a presidential candidate who was both Mormon and professed Battlefield Earth to be his favorite book?
It's almost nice seeing him staying out of it because he's giving policy speeches and still issuing his belief as to what conservatism is. He's laying out his ideological foundations before he gets into the nuts and bolts of the campaign.
I would like to see a forum that allows the candidates to eagerly discuss and debate the various ideas of conservatism, how they work, their weaknesses and strengths just because I really believe that when people learn more about conservatism and how it works, more people become converts to it. With the debates being what they are, it's not happening, the questions get asked, the answers are soundbitish and don't ever give any historical understanding of the question or why their answer is the right answer.
I mean, I'm not saying he should or shouldn't necessarily... but it certainly ties in with all his other positions, so I don't see why people point to that specific thing as some kind of stand-out crazy idea. His integrity in regards to government spending, the constitution, and his knowledge and ideas relating to foreign policy are all pretty compelling, from what I've seen so far in reading up on him -- he's not without his flaws in regards to his support for more right-wing social beliefs (to me anyway that is, although I doubt he would legislate them in the vein of neocons), but he's by far the most interesting candidate the GOP has right now.
You should reject Mormonism because its a freaking cult, that it goes against history is icing on the cake.
I'm not sure what's so special about cults. Does the age of a fantastical belief lend it authenticity? Astrology has been around for a while, but Nancy Reagan is still retarded for believing in it.
No, I would not vote for someone whose views are too extreme and inane and might cause problems: Mormons, Protestant fundies, or Catholic fundies. If I did feel like they truely could be an amazing candidate I would swallow that bitter pill.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
The thing is is that unlike most other religions, we have historical evidence documenting all of the founders' bullshit. With Christianity, you can't prove using newspapers and other evidence that Jesus was really a complete jackass. It is also harder to bullshit and say that he meant it figuratively when you have the founder's words on what he meant.
I am sympathetic to your rejection of Astrology, but not to your project of grouping all unreasonable beliefs together as equivalent. It strikes me as highly absurd to claim that there's no way to differentiate among unreasonable beliefs with regards to factors such as how strongly the average adherent believes, how insane the tenant, how irrelevant to policy, and so on.
Programming.
Still most of the reverence attached to religions are tethered ot thier age. If someone came up to you can started saying Biblical events like they were happening today you'd call them fucking nuts. If someone claimed to have come back from the dead or get instructions directly from God you'd call them a liar or a lunatic. But since the bible happens in a mythical time we know little about suddenly ridiculous events become acceptable. Cults have ridiculous ideas that occur in modern times thus they get ridiculed much quicker than established faiths.
Let's not forget that the Romans considered Christians to be a cult too.
Because I've always used it a little more specifically to mean a religious group that demands unhealthy exorbitant control over the money and personal lives of its adherents.
Meh. I doubt the Mormons come up across the line although I understand they are very authoritarian.
I'm pretty sure the Scientologists do though.
But that's true of lots of human institutions besides religions.
Fair enough, but isn't that volatility easily countered then by using say a basket of commodities or something like that then instead? While still effectively pulling in the reigns on the government spending outside of the country's means?
I always thought the gold standard was abandoned (and this is a simplified account) because the government was spending outside it's means and was getting called on it with increased frequency by it's currency/debt holders, and in recognizing the gap between gold in reserve and it's potential gold obligations that arose out of that overspending/creation of credit (basically ignoring the point of a backed currency), decided they pretty much had to nix it. I could be wrong on that....but as my knowledge of it stands, it certainly sounds like a more appealing system than the one where a privately owned organization debases the US dollar by non-stop money printing to pay for unbalanced trade and gigantic domestic budget deficits while destroying people's wealth.
Also, I still think it would be cool if people explained why they felt why getting rid of income tax is batshit insane. Again I'm not saying I personally think it isn't insane, but as someone who wants to form an opinion on the matter and someone who is intrigued by Ron Paul's ideas, and this being a discussion thread... maybe some elaboration is in order. Is it because the decrease in revenues would prevent the federal government from taking on the kind of roles you believe it's responsible for? I'm just curious is all -- at least to me it doesn't jump out as something automatically crazy....maybe I'm just crazy too
No, you don't understand. The word "Creationism" refers to a specific (well, a specific pair of) beliefs- Young Earth Creationism, and Old Earth Creationism.
Both reject Evolution. Period, full stop.
Reconciling faith with evolution is called "Theistic Evolution"- evolution is a fact and happened, but like everything else, God made it.
If someone identifies as a creationist, then they identify themselves as rejecting evolution as fact. Or they are ignorant of the term.
And if they're just concealing their true beliefs to get elected, that's not really that much better- because again, as far as I am concerned, the rejection of the fact of evolution, privately or publicly, is indicative of a broken mind.
But the problem with that is that there are intelligent, socially functional people who believe in Creationism. My father in law believes that the Grand Canyon is the product of Noah's flood. But he's not an idiot, he just doesn't question anything that comes from a source that's proven reliable to his mind.
He also believes in the literal reading of Revelation as a prophecy of the future. It's damn strange, but honestly, I don't think he's broken.
Most people do not choose their words and carefully as you do.
Oh, I'm perfectly aware that there are varying degrees of unreason, partitioning one's mind, and so on.
Hence:
Astrology, and the kind of person who adheres to it (extreme leftist mystics, in my experience) doesn't cause me to draw a huge distinction between it and any cute, cultish religion. Their views on civil liberties are generally acceptable to me (as they tend to be liberal), but their views on science, education, and foreign policy are often warped through ignorance and irrationality.
Hey, Bobby Fischer is a supergenius at logic puzzles. With training it isn't a stretch to imagine he could become a brilliant military strategist. In spit of the fact that he believes that "America must be destroyed", lets have him work on our defense strategy. Its not like his private personal convictions are relevant to his job as a tactician.
Hey, this Presidential Candidate is a pretty great statesman. He also believes in a slew of things for which there is no rational justification, many of which are utterly and completely falsifiable by science, yet he continues to believe them anyway. He also believes that dead alien spirits are the source of human suffering and that pharmaceuticals are evil (or that God is directing your life and that Jesus is landing again in the near future to make it all OK for us). Lets vote him into office during a time where global warming, stem cell research, abortion, Zionism, radical Islam, poverty, starvation and other such issues demand constant address. Its not like his personal convictions are relevant to his job as the worlds most important decision maker.