Atomic Space Vixen
-
Posts
91 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Atomic Space Vixen
-
-
It's refreshing to see someone so wrong, so completely self-serving being praised by people who obviously don't understand his character.
Refreshing? The world got to watch this happen just this past U.S. presidential election just as they were voting for the guy who was wrong, self-serving, and lacking in character.
-
Anyone who doesn't think this is a problem now that is only going to get worse has their head in the sand.
Who said anything about cutting down the jungles and the dumping of toxic substances? That's obviously a problem but it is not what is being debated here since it has nothing to do with the possible adverse efect of greenhouse gas emissions.
Cutting down the jungles is directly related to CO2 increases because they help purge the stuff through photosynthesis. I brought up the other stuff because by focussing so much on CO2 it's easy to forget the bucketloads of mercury, lead, and other fun stuff we're letting loose. It all comes down to us messing up this planet.
-
I kept seeing "black shadows:
It seemed more like black smoke creatures to me, and remember that Danielle was talking about "When you see the black smoke," which we all thought referred to the pillar of smoke from that fire on the beach.
-
Carbon dioxide is just part of the crap we've been dumping into our atmosphere for the past century or so. There's all the other pollutants that have been going into the air or in the water (there's a dead area the size of New Jersey in the Gulf of Mexico thanks to pollution from the Mississippi) since the Industrial Revolution, the steady growth of the human population and the destruction of all the forest areas and wetlands that are supposed to do the cleaning up for us.
Anyone who doesn't think this is a problem now that is only going to get worse has their head in the sand.
-
Am I wrong when I say that the Cuba crisis could have led to nuclear war? Sure, the Soviet wasn't quite as much a threat as Cuba, but they were supplying the goods. I may be mistaken but wasn't the US pretty close to launching bombs? Cause that would've meant MAD.
It was close to war, but nuclear? Who knows. Again, it was the US that was close to launching, and it's actually a great example of what I'm talking about because the USSR backed down.
-
Terrorism is a bigger threat to our lives than MAD ever was, because if there was one thing the Soviets weren't, they weren't martyrs.
You, my dear, are either truly paranoid or completely ignorant of what the concept of MAD entails. Or perhaps you just underestimate the chances of nuclear war happening during the Cold War. You say that the soviets weren't martyrs but you are quite wrong. They were willing to retaliate to a nuclear attack with one of their own even knowing that such action would only mean to die killing. Isn't that what a martyr does?
Key word in your post: "Retaliate" We saw during WW2 that Russians are willing to die by the millions to protect their country. But to attack another nation with nuclear weapons only to be assured their own destruction... not so much. What good is having power if you're too dead to enjoy it?
I'm neither paranoid (I have no fear of terrorist attacks, because I don't live near a good target) and I know exactly what MAD entails. The Soviets weren't stupid enough to blow themselves up and were driven more by power than by ideology.
My dear.
-
That Batman is retarded. I don't know why people like it. It wns't even funny most of the time. The comedy,a cting, and stories ALL sucked. I'll take the worst Batman move from the 'serious' series than that Joker (heheh) of a garbage tv series...
BITE YOUR BLASPHEMOUS TONGUE!
-
Can't argue with the fact that the rich got even richer, but it's true too that the world is a safer place now without the menace of MAD hovering over our heads, so all in all I'd say it was a fair exchange.
The world's a safer place? It doesn't feel that way to me. In fact, I'd wager there are more people dead today than there would have been without the collapse of the Soviet Union. Not just in Chechnya, but the Balkans too. With the USSR to concentrate on as an enemy, the US likely wouldn't have slaughtered thousands in Iraq.
I'm not saying saying I was a fan of the USSR, far from. And there would have been more people alive today if Stalin never got into power. But the Soviets did stop committing genocide, and if the the USSR never collapsed, at least not as suddenly as it did with such a void left, more people would be alive today.
No, the world isn't a safer place today. Those of us in the West just feel safer. Or felt safter until September 11. Terrorism is a bigger threat to our lives than MAD ever was, because if there was one thing the Soviets weren't, they weren't martyrs.
-
What if the poor financed the defeat of the Soviet Union? Is that a reasonable dividend for their contribution during the eighties? After all, Regan did significantly contribute to the end of the Cold War ...
(...And welcome to the discussion.
)Not really. Is the average Russian better off than they were before the collapse of the USSR? Most of the non-Chechyens have somewhat more freedom, but in a nation run by thugs and gangsters.
Besides which, it was the rich that were salivating over the Russian markets, why should the poor suffer to help the rich get even richer?
(...Thanks.)
-
It's been a looooooong time since I've been familiar with any Eurovision entries (the last one I could name would really date me), but nobody will ever touch the greatness that was ABBA.
-
(Clever economics? Hmm, it's a bit early to say whether Mr Regan was lucky, made his own luck by being utterly unflinching in his Supply-side Economics, or truly brilliant. Still, it worked, so the debate about whether he knew what he was doing is moot.)
I've been avoiding posting in this thread, despite some mouth-watering tidbits I'd love to have jumped on, because I've been tired and really don't want to get into some of the endless arguments again, but this one was too much.
It's far from settled that Reaganomics "worked". In fact, in many aspects not only did they not work, they were at best an abject failure, at worst did immeasurable harm. But that depends on how you look at it. There were people who made great money, but any trickle down didn't make up for the losses the poor faced.
So no, the debate is far from moot.
-
I may be wrong in my atheism. I got involved in this thread and now have major tooth pain ("ache" doesn't quite do it justice). God is out to get his revenge on me! I'll see you all in a couple of days, unless the pain meds decide to work before I get to my appointment on Friday.
-
Sorry, but your totally wrong...Atheism was and is the cornerstone of Communism, Marxism, etc.
Silly me. Here I thought they were economic/social belief systems.
Marx -
Occam's Razor.
-
Welcome back...First, why attack something so violently? Guilt has nothing to do with it. Fear has everything to do with it. While many religious people are good, decent folk, religion itself is dangerous.
So is Athiesm, thats why the right of the individual to chose their own path is so important.
As long as people adhere to the Bible, Koran, whatever, there are going to be fundamentalists who feel stonings are just fine. While I've had the belief for some time, what turned my approach more militant was September 11 and the Bush presidency. That really opened my eyes to religious fanaticism and the danger it brings.I empathise with your fear - really I do, but you must understand that I grew up persecuted for my parent's beliefs by anti-christians. Are you worried that someone like me will become president and have you stoned for living in defiance of my moral code? I'm worried that someone like you will come to power again and throw me and my family into a prison camp for believing in the Bible as Literal, and choosing to disagree with your moral code.
I'm talking real danger like the fanaticism it takes to fly an airplane into a building. No sane atheist, no matter how fanatical, would do that.But they would torture and kill millions of christians, burn our churches and outlaw my religion on pain of death.
So not guilt, no. Fear pure and simple.I wish you freedom from fear...do you think that because I disagree with your lifestyle I some how wish you harm? I don't. I would willingly defend your freedom to live free even if it endangered myself. And I will always vote against anyone who seeks to enforce the Bible's moral code on an unwilling person.
As to purpose, I said a "world without purpose". As a species we have a purpose, continue the species.Continue to let them live in a purposeless world? For what purpose?
And if you're right about the afterlife (which is no reason to believe), then I hope that hell is separation from God, because as he's portrayed in the Bible, well, he's too much of a jerk to spend eternity with.Hmm, well, I know you don't believe he died for you, but if you were born at the bottom of a pit, and God lowered you a rope, which you refused to take hold of, even though he said a flood was coming that would drown you, and so he died making an easier way to escape, and you still refused, cause the pit really ain't so bad, and because he should have just snapped his fingers and got you out...does he still seem likea jerk to you?
Using Communist dictatorships as a blueprint for an atheist nation is bad, because they didn't base their cruel governments on atheism. Atheism was just a tool to try and enforce complete allegience to The State. That's different than being a fanatical atheist. I'd never say that Nazi Germany was a nation based on Christianity, but Hitler used religion to try and get the people to do what he wanted. I can understand how it affected you though.
Besides that, there is no Atheist Handbook that tells me to burn your church and throw you in jail for believing in God. There is a Bible though, and it proscribes some pretty horrible punishments for me.
To make this clear however, as much as I do not like religion, I would never want to see it banned either. I would vote against anyone wanting to do such. It's up to us as a species acting under our own free will to open our eyes and see the wrongness in religion. To try to ban atheism under law would be a little hypocritical of me.
By the way, do you know there are areas of the United States where it's illegal for an admitted atheist to hold public office?
I don't see the need for the world to have purpose. Why does it need one? Why can't it just be? Again, that's not the same as people finding their own purposes in life. The world is just a place for us all to get along together and make as good a place to live our short lives as we can.
And finally, for your God/rope/pit analogy, it depends. If God stuck a firehose in the pit and was causing the flood (he supposed created everything, after all), and would only lower the rope if I said I loved him and really meant it or at least sleep with him, then yes, he'd be a jerk. He'd be less of a jerk if he didn't cause the flooding, but making so many emotion demands before lowering the rope isn't just jerky, it's needy.
-
Though it's already been gone over in that it's moot to a conversation about evolution, and I don't really want to get too much into this thread as I'm already banging my head against a wall elsewhere and there are only so many minutes in a day, I need to bring this up...
A religionist asks, "Where did matter come from?"
Now one of the things I find very difficult to wrap my brain around when it comes to religious belief is why religious people can't accept that matter and energy just may have always existed in one form or another, but they can readily accept a supremely intelligent, omnipotent being who just happens to be there without having been created.
-
1. Yes. Libertarianism is the best way to prevent open warfare between people in the same society, and indeed make the society more attractive than other, more restrictive ones.
I almost laughed out loud at this one.
Come on, if there ever was a system that was guaranteed to bring about open warfare, it's libertarianism. Unless the poor all starve to death first and there are robots to do the menial labour, then it should be just fine. -
Me, I don't have God and I'm doin' just fine!
Really? Why attack something so violently that you are convinced isn't real? Guilt?
" You just have a tremendous psychological need for him to exist because a world without purpose and an everlasting death are too much for you to handle.Without purpose? So, in your philosophy, everything is meaningless? If you truely believe that, I pity you. You essentially said that you, your morality and your knowledge are purposeless and futile.
I have no problem comprehending oblivion, it is rather simple. If you are right, I will have lived a very happy life, and die knowing I tried to make the world a better, happier place - even if in vain.
What if I'm right, A.S.V?
Wow, this thread has grown since I was last here, so I'll just touch on these bits...
First, why attack something so violently? Guilt has nothing to do with it. Fear has everything to do with it. While many religious people are good, decent folk, religion itself is dangerous. As long as people adhere to the Bible, Koran, whatever, there are going to be fundamentalists who feel stonings are just fine. While I've had the belief for some time, what turned my approach more militant was September 11 and the Bush presidency. That really opened my eyes to religious fanaticism and the danger it brings.
I'm not talking more insidious dangers like the social pressures that drive gay teens to suicides or doing what it takes to drive women back to 1955 (or 1855 for that matter), I'm talking real danger like the fanaticism it takes to fly an airplane into a building. No sane atheist, no matter how fanatical, would do that. Or the fanaticism that sees us in the End Times and will work diligently to help usher forth the Apocalypse within our lifetimes (I can provide you with some links for this if you want, you know I can).
So not guilt, no. Fear pure and simple.
As to purpose, I said a "world without purpose". As a species we have a purpose, continue the species. As individuals we give ourselves purpose in life and don't hope that some invisible being has a purpose in store for us. Self-determination, dang, it's fun.
And if you're right about the afterlife (which is no reason to believe), then I hope that hell is separation from God, because as he's portrayed in the Bible, well, he's too much of a jerk to spend eternity with.
-
But a thought is not the same as an action. I hate George W. Bush, but shouldn't be thrown in prison for that.
One- No, you shouldn't be thrown in prision, but you are still sinning.
However, you're arguing that Thought Crimes are the equal of actual crimes. Ever read 1984?Two- Yes, and I also had the unpleasent experience of growing up in a country where I was persecuted for the faith of my parents. Humans have no right to punish or attempt to regulate thought like in 1984. But since God made you and is perfect, he can.
I disagree, I'm not a sinner and I'm not in rebellion against anyone. Tell me what I have done that deserves eternal torture.Three- Well, disagree with the Bible. As for torture, your idea of hell is probably similar to your idea of a concentration camp, which is not what hell is. No one is going to be poking you with a branding iron. Hell is a place of everlasting separation from God, which you choose to exile yourself too or be saved from. And since all the good things in life (like Love, hope, contentment etc.) are from God, you will experience none of them. You are able to express these on earth only because you were made in God's image. Without God, we are all evil, as bad as Hitler or Stalin.
By that logic, a jaywalker is as bad as a murderer. I'm not being facetious here, because that is exactly what you're saying. Remind me to never jaywalk in Texas.Four- Yes that is exactly what I'm saying. Therefore, you can't say you are any better or less guilty than anyone else, and no one can say they are better or less guilty than you.
That is just messed up. "I won't show myself, but believe in me or I'll beat you up!"Five- He has shown himself. You just refuse to accept him his way.
Hmmm. The fictional sequal to a work of fiction shows that a prophesy in the first came true? Colour me unimpressed.I wouldn't be impressed either, but its non-fiction, so there goes that argument...
One- I disagree, but then, I don't believe in the concept of "sin".
Two- How does a "perfect" god have a complete change in personality from one Testament to the next? How can he have a "Chosen People"? What are the others, pawns in a sick game? The god of the Bible is as much as ass as the likes of Zeus, but believers keep saying he's "perfect" and that his assness is just peachy. I'm particularly curious why a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient deity would insist on being worshipped under pain of eternal punishment. How is this making sense to you? He displays all the signs of an omni-inferiority complex. If I were to create life and insist it get down on its knees and worship me, that would be pretty sad.
Three- I've heard this concept of hell before, of it being just "seperation from God" which would be great, I'd love to go to hell if it existed, but lakes of fire are still being mentioned. That can't be pleasant. And speaking of sad, the idea that without God we're as bad as Hitler or Stalin is really... sad. And scary too that you feel without God you'd be as bad as some of the worst mass murderers in history. Me, I don't have God and I'm doin' just fine!
Four- I knew this was a waste of time coming in, some people are too far gone, especially when they feel sins with all the horrible equivalence of jaywalking are just as bad as murder. The only reason to go on with this conversation is, hey, why not?
Five- Nope, never showed himself. You just have a tremendous psychological need for him to exist because a world without purpose and an everlasting death are too much for you to handle. Hey, you read my mind and I'll read yours.
-
Misogyny and homophobia all in one here...
Romans 1:26 - 1:27 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
There may be arguments about "natural use" being misogynistic, but I know I don't feel good being told that my "natural use" is a receptacle for male seed.
You must hate the Science of Biology, then. Are you actually arguing that your sexual organs natural use is not to reproduce? Whether or not you decide to have children is your business...but saying that the male/female reproductive organs are not for reproduction is a little silly...
I don't think you're quite getting how "men, leaving the natural use of the woman" could be interpreted to read that our "natural use" is nothing more than baby-making machines for men. This has nothing to do with biology and everything to do with integrating both sexes as complete human beings into functioning societies.
-
i live in america.and if u ask me the liberals over here suck!.
But how is their spelling, grammar, and punctuation?
-
Finally, it is a masterpiece of world literature, and it should be viewed as such.
Now we're getting into purely subjective views here, and I'd have to say that without the religious aspects, it wouldn't have stood the test of time as literature. Have you ever tried reading through Numbers? I obviously don't believe it's the Good Book, but I don't even think that it's a particularly good book, but again, that's purely subjective.
-
Thanks, but without your rather biased comments, those aren't really misogynistic quotes. Archaic conceptions of what family roles and aesthetics are, at worst. Using today's standards to judge the past is not a very good way of analyzing history.
Hmmm... Submit to men, suffer not a woman to teach, never usurp a man's authority? Sounds like woman hating to me. But then, silly me, I don't have a male sex organ (edited: this forum doesn't like the P word) so I guess I'm not in a position to judge.
"Archaic conceptions of what family roles and aesthetics are..." In the Divinely Inspired Word of God? I was unaware God was in business of appeasing cultural sensibilities. Either the Bible is the Word of God and is as relevant today as it was when it was written or it's full of archaic conceptions written by flawed human beings and much of it can be disregarded in today's world. Which is it?
-
And "Lust=Adultury/rape [sic]" seems reasonable to you? "Hate=Murder" seems reasonable? A thought or emotion is equal to an action is reasonable to you? If so, I'm committing assault and battery right now.
Yes, you are. A thought/emotion IS the same as an action, because God judges mens hearts, not just they're actions. That should make it easier to forgive someone who physically hurt you, knowing your no better.
But a thought is not the same as an action. I hate George W. Bush, but shouldn't be thrown in prison for that. However, you're arguing that Thought Crimes are the equal of actual crimes. Ever read 1984?
Why do we deserve hell? I've never killed anyone, raped anyone, and the only theft I've committed was as a teenage and I regret that.Because you are a sinner, like the rest of us, in rebellion against God.
I disagree, I'm not a sinner and I'm not in rebellion against anyone. Tell me what I have done that deserves eternal torture.
I'm bisexual and have had sex with consenting adult men and women (but not in the same way with each, and I'm not a man, so I'm not sure if that's an abomination or not).Stop mis-using "abomination". All sin is an abomination. You are no more or less deserving of hell than a person who lies or steals something. We're all equally bad.
By that logic, a jaywalker is as bad as a murderer. I'm not being facetious here, because that is exactly what you're saying. Remind me to never jaywalk in Texas.
Let's pretend God is real. That would mean that not only did he create the universe, he created heaven and hell. He then set the rules that would determine who goes where then gave us all sorts of flaws that would lead us to break those rules while all the while successfully hiding any and all evidence of his existance.You have to have faith. Without faith, it is impossible to please God. And whether or not you believe it, he gave you the capacity to trust him, and the freedom to reject him.
That is just messed up. "I won't show myself, but believe in me or I'll beat you up!"
At some point, he decides to send his sonDid you know that the first prophesy of the coming of Christ is in Genesis, right after Adam and Eve sinned for the first time? He's been preparing to die for your sins for a long time.
Hmmm. The fictional sequal to a work of fiction shows that a prophesy in the first came true? Colour me unimpressed.
(was Joseph gay and Mary his beard?)No, Jospeh and Mary had several children after Christ was born, including Jude, who wrote the Book of Jude.
I'm still impressed that they went so long after being married before consumating the marriage. Mary wasn't living up to her natural use for a while there!
Come on, if there ever was a system that was guaranteed to bring about open warfare, it's libertarianism. Unless the poor all starve to death first and there are robots to do the menial labour, then it should be just fine.
What happens when the body dies?
in Way Off-Topic
Posted
Remember what it was like before you were born? It'll be just like that.