With the antiwar, moonbat left, I believe it is as much of a political thing as a death wish for western civilization.

The anti-war, moonbat left will accept nothing short of defeat. They will accept nothing short of a terrorist takeover in Iraq, so that they can seize upon the opportunity to call the mission (and, by extension, GWB) a total failure. Damned the consequences, damned the genocides. Political victory for the DNC, not victory for Iraq, is their end game.

DNC motto: Victory through scorched earth... we'll be happy to sift through the bodies after the fact.
Leo Pusateri | Email | Homepage | 04.11.08 - 9:22 am | #

Leo,

The political "thing" is a smoke screen to hide their death wish from all - including and especially from themselves. They want the good to be destroyed BECAUSE it is good even at the cost of their own extinction.
A. Rational Human | Email | Homepage | 04.11.08 - 10:14 am | #

> For both of those reasons, we must develop a strategy that will "finish the job and not leave a mess"

Screw that -- we have an obligation to the Iraqi People to clean up the mess.

I have no problems with why we went in there, but regardless of your agreement or disagreement with those reasons, We Are There.

We made a mess, now it is OUR JOB to help clean it up.

Anything else is morally reprehensible
Hippie Hippie Shake | Email | Homepage | 04.11.08 - 10:48 am | #

That above was me. LOL
OBloody Hell | Email | Homepage | 04.11.08 - 10:49 am | #

Just because you (dems) decide not to fight anymore, doesn't mean the 'war is over'!!

I believe the scenerio will be like that of the Iranian Revolution. When the students and workers (joined by the islamic fanatics) revolted to overthrow the Shah, the aftermath was not what they thought it would be (democracy). The ones willing to be the most ruthless and bloody took power in the end.
It's foolish for Obama to believe that if we left and all hell broke loose, we would go back in.
xqqme | Email | Homepage | 04.11.08 - 11:10 am | #

You know you might want to take it down a note.

People are not "willfully" evil. Nor are they stupid. People are doing what's best for their own intrest. And this is what mother theresa was doing, AND this is what hitler was doing, what stalin was doing, and what gen. Patton was doing.

The difference is not (I repeat : NOT) that they're inherently evil. You could say however, that the devil seduced them.

Let's make a few points. The democrats, the most evil leftist megalomaniacs amongst them are not out to "save the world" from global warming, or from any resulting disasters. Rather, they're doing the same republicans are doing : they're improving their own lives. Now global warming is true or false, but if it's true, it's a fantastic excuse for massive global government handouts, and a totalitarian system with them at the helm, allowing democrats to feel good. So "making global warming true", is, for tomorrow, a fantastic way to run things.

After all the government budget is 2,5 TRILLION dollars. That's enough to give every american 9000 dollars this year alone. And if they skim 10% of for themselves (easily doable), since they're the ones who "conquered it" that gives them 250 billion dollars to divide amongst eachother.

So for tomorrow, the democrat strategy is a VERY good one. Wouldn't you like to get your share delivered tomorrow (at least 9000 dollars) ? I sure as hell would. I don't have an iphone yet, you see. Really nice little gizmo.

The day after tomorrow, however, *might* be a bit of a disappointment. That is (or should be, and it mostly is) the theory of the republican party. We should use that money to beat some sense into muslims. We should use that money to build a new harbor. To build a new highway system. To ... most of all that money should be used to convince ordinary americans to have a family, and kids. Preferably many kids, because kids are the future. Another thing the bible comprehends well. The ONLY measure of success in one's life is how many kids of the same ideology as yourself you have. How many educated kids one has. And when a person has this, they *will* feel good about themselves (really, you know). And so republicans are working to make themselves feel good.

Now put yourself in a species designer's shoes. Say you build a new species of crocodile. You write brain pathways to control the legs, to swim, to crawl, to swing that enormous tail into pushy australian tv stars' faces. The works. Then you get to the "purpose of life" part. You have all these little bits, all these nice things your little animal is capable of. HOW should it use them, and more importantly : WHY ...

There are 2 concerns, in the long run : staying alive (extreme short term goal), and this is, without a doubt, the most important one. It almost always trumps all others. If your animal fails to satisfy this extremely short-term goal for even 1 microsecond ... it's over. Bye. You're dead, deceased, kaput, ... Better luck next time, except you're dead, so there is no next time. So you, as a designer, would have to put extreme importance into short-term goals. Not all-overriding importance, but 99,99999% of the time, that's what it will be doing : satisfying extreme short term goals. Being a good little victim, being a good little democrat.

And then there is the long term goal, the goal that needs to be built towards, and which you can afford to dump, not permanently, but even several years is not going to be a problem. Which goal ? Simple : more crocodiles. Through procreation for some (esp. the women), protecting children/women for others (esp. the men), ... BUT this goal can be delayed, restarted, given up temporarily, all without great consequences (you DO get to try again), with loss of an investment, yes, but you don't die. You get to try again.

So obviously any real-world brain is going to put short-term goals above long term goals, 99,9999% of the time.

Because of this democrats are not evil. Not any more evil or less evil than crows eating the seeding grain for next year : they're causing their own destruction AND yours in the process, BUT in the very short term, it helps them. Not any more or less evil than muslims reintroducing the slave trade in afrika (e.g. in Sudan). They are destroying themselves, BUT tonight they have a little black girl chained to their bed, and tomorrow a little black boy will have breakfast ready, after which they can go and rape his brother, who's tied up in the yard.

I sure as hell would like to buy an iphone for me using that 2.5 trillion dollar tomorrow. But I would also like to buy a bigger house next year.

So which is the real difference between (today's) democrats and republicans ? Democrats are fighting to optimize TOMORROW at the cost of next month. Republicans are fighting to optimize next month at the cost of tomorrow.

Note that this is the same difference that the bible is alluding to. The 7 sins :

Lust - short term satisfaction of sexual desire
Gluttony - short term satisfaction of comfort desire (both food, expensive decorations, ...)
Greed - short term satisfaction of financial desire
Sloth ...
Wrath ...
Envy ...
Pride ...

The 7 virtues :

Chastity - long term satisfaction of sexual impulse + good for the community
Modesty - long term satisfaction (saving up) of food and luxery desires
Charity - long term satisfaction of financial desire - invest in others
Diligence ...
Forgiveness ...
Kindness ...
Humility ...

What is the difference between the paedophile prophet and mother theresa ? Easy : mother theresa was slowly building up a very good and satisfying life, more and more people cared about her, until at the end millions of people are on her side and will keep her in their hearts for a *very* long time, the paedophile prophet was every day working to have a fresh 6-year old chained to his bed that evening, to awaken to the horror, the coldness and the fear of his companions, to eventually get poisoned and betrayed ...

Iran will not slowly work toward having a sensible strategy to go up against us ... it's just not in their nature. The first opening they think they see they will assault. We should exploit this : allow an open corridor in Iraq for Iran to enter, demonstrating their intentions and eradicating a good part of their military. Democrats will not slowly construct an inspiring strategy for this nation to follow ... it's just not the way they work. They will "find something 'good'" and run with it, crying like 6 month olds when people stop believing in it (read michelle obama's words a few times, dear God, this woman is supposed to have finished a university education. She sure as hell did not study for it).

They do NOT have a death wish, anymore than a fox eating a farmer's chickens has a death wish. Nor are they "evil" in the way the dictionary defines that word. They're just like heroine addicts : all that counts is getting through a new shot in the next 5 minutes : they want to outlaw the farmer's shotgun, and *will* find themselves either shot or without any more chickens.

But the difference between them is not "morality", at least not in the sense people here talk about it. The difference between them is short-term goals versus long-term goals. And again, we NEED both short, and very short term goals, AND long term goals. *That* difference is the difference between good and evil, nothing else.
Tom | Email | Homepage | 04.11.08 - 11:10 am | #

Btw this is why terror works : it works by providing you with the opportunity to satisfy a very short term goal, which is worth something, but not *that* much, in trade for a much larger long term cost.

And they're right : Iraq is, in that definition of the word, a terrorist action : it provides Iraqi's with a big reward for joining the modern world, giving up at least part of their religion in trade. They can satisfy short-term goals by ... abandoning islam, or at least the way of life islam prescribes. Obviously in a society where people have jobs, not praying (if you call "salat" praying, ie. muslim style praying) provides tangible benefits.

The real ("western") meaning of terror is obviously not respecting a certain moral standard, nothing else. In which case Bush is not a terrorist and lefties and muslims alike, are.
Tom | Email | Homepage | 04.11.08 - 11:24 am | #

Tom,

Perhaps you should NOT take your morality from psychotic stone age shepherds. An ancient multiply transliterated text selected by medieval frightened tired old superstitious men as a source leads you to seriously bad conclusions inconsistent with the thriving of human life on earth.
A. Rational Human | Email | Homepage | 04.11.08 - 11:58 am | #

Evil never considers itself evil or calls itself evil.

So we look at factual evidence of the tell tale harm of evil. And it points to radical islamist and modern democrats.
SteveH | Email | Homepage | 04.11.08 - 12:49 pm | #

THE WAR INSIDE THE STATES

Armed Citizen: "I carry a firearm for self-defense against random violence that seems to get worse by the day."

Govt.Says: Only those authorized by the 'common good' should carry guns. But if you insist, you will be mug photoed, finger printed, and regestered just like a sex offender.

Multi-Culti Faggot Guy: "I fuck my boyfriends in their assholes"

Govt. Says: We must protect this sacred 'civil right' and to insure no one violates it we will silence them with hate crime laws. To protect "the children," explainations and tolerance of buggery will be taught in the public schools.
Oracle of Delaware | Email | Homepage | 04.11.08 - 1:33 pm | #

Oracle,

That only shows its not wise to rely on the words of modern day frightened tired old superstitious men as a source for your moral guidance either. One must use something other than superstition, myth, and unquestionable unquestioned tradition if one hopes to survive and thrive.
A. Rational Human | Email | Homepage | 04.11.08 - 2:36 pm | #

Aragorn. Theoden. I see.
pierre | Email | Homepage | 04.11.08 - 2:43 pm | #

America needs to stay in Iraq until it is stable and strong enough to stand on its own. The surge wasn't a prelude to retreat. We need to face the fact that the US interest is not just the end of the Iraq War, it is a successful, stable, secure democratic Iraq.

Anyone who believes that Saudi Arabia and Iran will get together and come up with an acceptable solution for stability Iraq are ignoring a major feature - Iraq has a democratically elected government. It's messy and not very effective, but it stands as an example that Arab or muslim nations need not be ruled by authoritarian regimes. If the either the Saudis or Iranians had the opportunity to snuff out this democracy, they would do it in a heartbeat.

The recent operations against elements of the Mahdi Army in Baghdad and Basra, are demonstrating that the Iraqi Army can hold its own on the ground and with close air support and air interdiction, it can prevail against an armed opponent. Ground forces are necessary but not sufficient. In a year, we may be in a position where our involvement on the ground will be logistical support, perhaps some advisors and a training cadre. The US air support will still be needed to provide air defense, CAS and possibly nuclear alert for a decade or more.

To plan a successful conclusion to this war, we must build up an Iraqi tactical air capability. Iraq is beginning to see its oil revenues rise. If I were Malaki, I would begin to acquire Advanced Jet Trainers from non US sources. The relatively inexpensive aircraft have limited counter-air and ground attack roles. These aircraft have three advantages: (1) They are simple, easy and cheap to fly and maintain, (2) they are configurable to mimic the avionics of modern fighters and (3) they are war birds. Later, they may add defensive fighter capability.

We cannot allow the region to descend into chaos to give the political left a victory.
Arch | Email | Homepage | 04.11.08 - 4:04 pm | #

@A. Rational Human

Perhaps you should NOT take your morality from psychotic stone age shepherds. An ancient multiply transliterated text selected by medieval frightened tired old superstitious men as a source leads you to seriously bad conclusions inconsistent with the thriving of human life on earth.

Actually you should. Because there's another problem. Taking your morality from "stone age" (actually they lived during the heyday of the Roman empire) will make sure you're not alone.

And it is truly and completely irrelevant to your own situation how you act yourself, it is only relevant how others act.

Furthermore, every individual human being WILL fail. That means you too. That also means that you (nor I) can be trusted to "roll our own" morality.

Sorry but there is a reason Christianity claims man is fallen. He and, obviously, she, are. You are fallen too, and so am I.

That means that whatever the center of your morality is, it CANNOT BE YOU YOURSELF. Which is one stupid mistake the postmodernists make.

Btw, I find it funny how you claim that I'm wrong, whithout giving an alternative. How do you build your morality and how do you judge ? Obviously violence is a part of any healthy morality how/when and why do you apply violence ?

As you may see in Dr. Sanity herself : the very least you could say is that she has all the emotions she describes as causing such big failures in others. She has equal potential as any other human being to fail, to become a terrorist, or whatever. The emotions are there, leaving a constant potential for disaster. And I know I am the same. Do you seriously claim you're different ?

Once, probably for a brief period, even the paedophile prophet, even his imitators hitler and stalin, were just normal children with normal emotions, who'd never think to do what they later did. I think that that normal period could have been quite long. Reading the story of the paedophile prophet, you might even think that after he was poisoned, before he died, he actually repented at least a little bit, certainly he started caring more about other's opinions and he starts babbling about love a lot more after he got poisoned.

And then his children started attacking eachother, eventually to land the first murder in the last days of the paedophile's life.

But the potential is there. For the most moral man alive, even the pope himself, to turn into a low criminal, and for ahmadinejad himself to turn a christian missionary. The potential is there. And the potential is there for you to start murdering your own family, or random strangers, or ...

That's why people shouldn't make their own morality.
Tom | Email | Homepage | 04.11.08 - 5:06 pm | #

ARH...Thank you for the comment and I agree with you completely.

I now see that the example I used to describe insane inequities in federal law might upset some people.

For my "back-alley" insensitivities toward any modern day, old, tired, frightened, superstitious and bloviating Drag Queens posting up here...I apologize!!!!

The view from the Delaware Coast contains some myths, a few superstitions, and a ton of traditions. We bet our lives on it.
Oracle of Delaware | Email | Homepage | 04.11.08 - 5:44 pm | #

The idea that we should discard the wisdom of the ages in constructing morality is based on a conceit so outrageous that it's hard to connect with our actions: the idea that this generation is wiser in human relations, human behavior, and ethics than thousands of generations that went before us.

True, we can stand on the shoulders of the giants of the past in science. But if we rejected everything that had been discovered before on the grounds that we are smarter, we wouldn't get very far. Things are only rejected in science when they are proven untrue.

When has Christian morality been proven untrue?
njcommuter | Email | Homepage | 04.11.08 - 6:19 pm | #

Tom,

By the use of reason.

BTW, it is not my purpose to teach you what reason is, how to do it, and how to derive a rational morality by using it. I choose only to point out the folly of your chosen path.

A question: Since you are a fallen man full of error and sin, how can you be confident that you have selected the correct ancient tradition to follow? By what means do you validate what you select? Might not some other ancient text or tradition be the right one and the one you follow false?

Once you abandon reason, you have nothing to guide you in that choice except your feelings and what others tell you. However, others have exactly the same problem if they too have abandoned reason. The resultant morality a summation of zeros of a dependence on others who are depending upon still others who themselves are depending upon others without end. Worse, it often ends in someone who takes advantage of all and says he hears god and that you must follow him. Without reason you have no basis to object - so you follow to your doom.


Ideas matter. Fundamental ideas matter most.
A. Rational Human | Email | Homepage | 04.11.08 - 6:27 pm | #

I don't respect ancient Judeo Christian scripture for its denotation. I respect it for its connotation.

The fact that there is an America at all proves its wisdom.
SteveH | Email | Homepage | 04.11.08 - 7:42 pm | #

Steve,

You are welcome to follow whatever light you think you can find but don't use the word prove unless you are prepared actually to prove your statement. To do that, you must trace the chain of logic from the fundamental facts to the existence of America. Otherwise, its not a proof, its simply an assertion on your part.

Can you deliver on your statement or were you just blowing smoke?
A. Rational Human | Email | Homepage | 04.11.08 - 8:19 pm | #

ARH,
You mean proof to a common sense person or somebody with an anti Christian bias?

I contend the latter can't see the founding forest for the postmodern trees.
SteveH | Email | Homepage | 04.11.08 - 8:37 pm | #

Bias matters. Entrenched bias matters most.
SteveH | Email | Homepage | 04.11.08 - 8:48 pm | #

Steve,

My "bias" is that reality exists and ONLY reality exists, that said reality is knowable by man by the use of reason and only by reason. There is no other path to knowledge. All else is fantasy, myth, and superstition.

Proof means one and only one thing. Logically demonstrated connection of the thing to be proved to reality. Can your contention that your sacred text is the ultimate truth and that its god exists meet that test? It hasn't in its nearly 5000 years of existence. Are you up to it? If so, stand and deliver. Otherwise can the crap!
A. Rational Human | Email | Homepage | 04.11.08 - 10:45 pm | #

ARH,
I see you as afflicted by a narrowness of possibilities syndrome. You aint the first and won't be the last of people who think their knowledge and understanding is somehow at a pinnacle. Just pick any century and you'll see history is full of people like yourself.

Something tells me you have an inkling theres something amiss though. Or else you wouldn't be so eager to wish opposing views to your own would just shut up.

You're like a robot who knows everything but understands nothing.
SteveH | Email | Homepage | 04.12.08 - 7:20 am | #

Steve,

I see.

Man is unworthy by birth because his first ancestor disobeyed the word from above. His mind cannot know BECAUSE he has a mind. He cannot see BECAUSE he has eyes. Reality is not all that exists. There is something that is beyond existence for which evidence is not necessary. There is experience beyond experience for which demonstration is not possible. There is knowledge beyond knowledge for which a process of knowing is not required. It is all revealed by that which is beyond all that exists. Belief is proof enough if you believe enough.

How is this different from your belief?

How is this different from insanity?
A. Rational Human | Email | Homepage | 04.12.08 - 8:07 am | #

Dr. Sanity: I enjoy your point of view and agree mostly with you.

However, you are clueless when it comes to Islam. Islam is out to enslave the world. I will believe that traitorous W. Bush is serious about our war (we refuse to define it as a war that Islam declared on the world) and stop calling it The War on Terror. WW2 in Europe was not called the War on the Blitzkrieg and the war in the Pacific was not called The War Against the Sneak Attack.
There is no such thing as a "Moderate Muslim". There are only Muslims or apostates.
We have to get the Muslims out of America and Europe and let them decide their future. They have to take the consequences for their belief system. Now we are just paying the jizyha (dhimmi tax) hoping that more Muslims will not attack us.
The future Iraq will,and now has, more in common with Iran and Al Queada than with America or Europe. We are providing money for our own destruction by attempting to create a stable Iraq. The better solution is to let them kill each other. That way they will be not be killing us.
You really need to understand the nature of Islam.
Klaus G H | Email | Homepage | 04.12.08 - 9:23 am | #

ARH,
You remind me of a man standing on a whale fishing for minnows. Then demanding where is the proof of these big fish the foolish ones speak of.

Reason dictates theres a bigger picture to be known. But i'm sure to a fish that only knows life at a mile deep in the ocean, all this talk of air and sunshine is demonstrable myth to him.
SteveH | Email | Homepage | 04.12.08 - 10:07 am | #

Steve,

If reason dictates there is a "larger picture" than I have specified show me the line of evidence and logic.

Oh, I know you *feel* it, however, that is evidence only of the fact you feel it and absolutely nothing else. Produce the evidence else you are spouting meaningless bullshit.
A. Rational Human | Email | Homepage | 04.12.08 - 12:07 pm | #

"All of creation screams of the existence of God."

"He who has eyes to see, let him see."

!
The Machine | Email | Homepage | 04.12.08 - 2:48 pm | #

Machine,

You are assuming what you are trying to prove. Hence it is an invalid proof. All that "creation" screams is that "creation" is. It says nothing to the effect that some anthropomorphic entity standing outside of existence wishing it into existence by some unspecified and unknowable process. It doesn't even say that it was created. It simply is.
A. Rational Human | Email | Homepage | 04.12.08 - 3:40 pm | #

A question: Since you are a fallen man full of error and sin, how can you be confident that you have selected the correct ancient tradition to follow? By what means do you validate what you select? Might not some other ancient text or tradition be the right one and the one you follow false?

The answer is trivially right below your question, yet you failed to respond.

America exists

There's one answer to your question. History proves the correctness of Judeo-Christian doctrine beyond any serious doubt.

Furthermore I know it to be true. Christianity contains another big truth in itself : everybody knows it's true. Maybe not everybody knows that Jesus died on the cross. But Christianity, including marriage rules and stance on abortion, embodies the morality that everybody knows is the absolute truth : killing one human for the comfort of another (abortion) is *wrong*. It is utterly and completely independant of just how much comfort is added, or how "incomplete" the victim is. There isn't a single biological definition of a feutus that would define it as non-human. The rational thing would be to treat is as any other human.

History ALSO proves the incorrectness of your ideology. Athena is the very embodiment of your ideology. Reason above everything. Art and reason conquer all. It didn't conquer all. In fact it conquered very, VERY few.

Well guess what : it crumbled in the face of inferior enemies, and internal squabbles. You see this "rationality" ... was a bit like polytheism : everybody had his own idea about what was rational, and they were egoistic monsters. Slaves, for example, were not rational. Just like for you religious people are necessarily irrational. Well guess what : they're not. Assuming the reverse is very irrational. Athena built a tower of babel that crumbled to a few hungry mice, so to speak.

Russia's revolution, communism, is another product of "reason" bringing a new morality. And whatever you think of communist leaders, the revolutionaries were believers, and they were trying to make a better place by using their own reason to organize society. We all know how that went.

Mao is another example. And even if he lost his belief later on, his entourage were believers in their reason.

Are you going to claim these people are irrational ? Because, given the historical context that will be *damn* hard an argument to make, I assure you.

Also your argument about creation being unproven to be divine rests on your misunderstanding of the concept of God. If God is NOT a bearded guy on a cloud, but truly a trancendental being, with or, better yet, even without a conscious will, your argument crumbles. "Nature"'s law exists, beyond doubt, even in your mind. Christians just claim that killing will have dire consequences, just as certain as any physics experiment. It's been shown, for many, many laws of Christianity, that various natural "blind" processes agree with it. Evolution finds killing universally bad too, for example.

And here's the little catch : if I assume I'm fallen, and therefore follow Christian doctrine, I *know* I will not be evil. I *know* that in the end, I will have done good. And I have people to help me with it.

If you assume you're not fallen, and your emotions get the better of you because of this assumption being wrong. You won't see it coming. You won't understand it. And you'll be the next hitler.

Besides, I've been in a few stressfull situations before. I thought the way you did. And then I *was* faced with a moral choice. Fight (and destroy someone) or face the music, so to speak. Guess which choice my rationality took ? Guess which one was the right one. It created a situation around me where I could trust no-one, and no-one could trust me. I nearly killed myself (well, I gave someone else no choice but to kill me). Rationally. Really, it *was* the correct thing to do. Great. When I look back, I do see what went wrong.

I, quite rationally, thought I could get away with anything, as long as I played my cards strategically and carefully. After all, the police are mere mortals, and so are other people who had fancy cars and mobiles and more ... And I was right, I could prevent the police from catching me, I could prevent others from betraying me. Rationally you know. Using terror, mutual threats, and violence. And you know what ? I ended up in the exact same situation as hitler and the paedophile prophet, even though I knew nothing of them : I had to make things worse for everybody to maintain my standing, my money, my new cellphone, my ... And others had to make things worse for me to maintain their standing. And I had to use violence against them. It was easy, I've been doing fighting sports all my life, and I had the fortune of having a teacher who made me aware of my own limits and the limits of the environment. It took a while until I understood that this was indeed the case, and I was utterly horrified.

Utterly horrified at the result of "rationality". If rationality means improving yourself every chance you get (and that's what it means to you), then you'll fuck yourself over.
Tom | Email | Homepage | 04.12.08 - 5:19 pm | #

Especially in Mao's example, I do think that a reasonable, defensible, case could be built that he has yet to be proven wrong. His country might very well still get the best of America.
Tom | Email | Homepage | 04.12.08 - 5:22 pm | #

Tom,

Like I said, it is not my purpose in life to teach you what reason is and how to do it. You continue to prove my point that you couldn't form a rational conclusion on your own if your life depended upon it. Which, unfortunately for you, it does.
A. Rational Human | Email | Homepage | 04.12.08 - 5:52 pm | #

ARH

The world "simply is?"

For those who are intellectually lazy, I guess that's the best resolution to their problem - dismiss it. Then you don't have to investigate it, and anyone else who does is obviously wasting their time. If someone remains in the dark it's a lot easier for him to sound convincing when he denies that something called "light" exists.

The chances that everything came about by "accident" requires so many accidents to have accidentally come out just right that it is essentially impossible.
http://arniegotfryd.com/content/...nt/view/128/44/
But, here we are, against all odds.

Here's a nice video on I.D. from Dr. Gotfryd's website for those who open their eyes and aren't screeming LA LA LA LA LA while plugging their ears with their fingers.
http://arniegotfryd.com/content/...nt/view/103/51/
yonason | Email | Homepage | 04.14.08 - 4:10 am | #

ARH,

When men choose their own morality and decides morality is based on reason you will get the following; Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Ghengis Khan, Mao Tse Dung, et.al., etc., etc., etc...........

You state that you are an atheist. Here is a site that utterly and completely demolishes evolution that you would have to believe in if you are. Read it all as a challenge, and refute it if you can. (You won't be able to, but try if you must).

And if evolution cannot occur but over billions of years, instead of the amount of time that is established, what is left but a divine act of creation?

http://evolution-facts.org/
peedoffamerican | Email | Homepage | 04.15.08 - 5:21 am | #

Like I said, it is not my purpose in life to teach you what reason is and how to do it. You continue to prove my point that you couldn't form a rational conclusion on your own if your life depended upon it. Which, unfortunately for you, it does.

Okay ... let's accept that whatever reason is, it *will* need to abide by the laws defined by mathematical logic, ok ?

What you're actually saying is that your truth needs to be "rational". Now there are 2 important properties to said rationality :
1) consistency
2) non-dogmatism

If either of these are not satisfied, you're either religious (dogmatic), or stupid (inconsistent).

Now let's apply Godel's second theorem, and see what it states about theories of this form. And let's spell it out for you :

There is NO useful theory that satisfies both conditions.

Useful means that this theory allows one to think about numbers, and thus about the world.

Therefore any theory that claims to satisfy both conditions, like you claim about your atheism, if it truly is non-dogmatic, necessarily has another slight problem ...

It is wrong. In the absolute sense. There are valid logical arguments that will prove that 1=2, given your view of the world, therefore your view of the world, is either wrong, or dogmatic (= which was the problem with religious thought).

Therefore if you equate "dogmatic" and "religious" as being the same, as nearly all atheists do, then the laws of nature are religious. And they are plain wrong.

I would agree, for other reasons though, that the laws of nature are religious. But it should be obvious that they are dogmatic : they are absolute, and a given. No vote in any parliament. No amount of lying to no amount of people will make .0000001% difference in c or e.

And if denying that is atheism (and for many people it is, and I think that this is how you think too), then atheism is logically wrong.
Tom | Email | Homepage | 04.16.08 - 6:10 am | #