Comments Posted By Jonathan
Displaying 81 To 90 Of 99 Comments
RELIGION AND POLITICS: INTOLERANCE IS GROWING
I think turtles have been around a lot longer than elephants. :-)
I was wondering if anyone would get that.
Comment Posted By Jonathan On 4.01.2007 @ 00:21
Your comments are relevant w.r.t. rational disagreements, but not so in the context of BDS.
Chip:
I guess you guys have totally forgotten the Clinton years.
"America Held Hostage" comes to mind pretty quickly.
I haven't listened in quite a few years but I listened to talk radio during most of the Clinton years (mostly Boortz cuz he was local to me and he's pretty entertaining even if you disagree with his politics) and I recall it was all Clinton hate, all the time. I quit listening when I finally realized it was just designed to p*ss me off whether I was right or left. If right, it reinforces what you believe and encourages anger at "lieberals", if left it just angers you because of it's unwarranted vitriol aginst about half the population.
How did the bumper sticker go? Something like "Screw the President and her husband too".
I guess you could have called it CDS - Clinton Derangement Syndrome. And it was no more rational than what we see with some on the left today.
Matthew 5:44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
The great majority on the right claim to be Christians, some of them vociferously so, but an awful lot of them never seem to have read the Sermon on the Mount.
I am an atheist now but I had an excellent religious education.
Comment Posted By Jonathan On 3.01.2007 @ 22:32
My own personal argument against the existence of a supreme being goes as follows.
If we stipulate that an intelligent designer designed our universe and us then it it seems logical to conclude that the intelligent designer must be more complex than are we.
If it required an intelligent designer to design a being of our level of complexity then how can it be that an intelligent designer came into being without an even more complex intelligent designer to design him/her/it?
That's my argument in a nutshell, the whole idea of an intelligent designer leads to an infinite number of ever more complex entities, each of which requires an even more complex entity to design it.
I think that Ockham's Razor can be used to cut this Gordian Knot of infinitely ever more complex designers. The short version of Ockham's Razor can be stated thusly: "When given two equally valid explanations for a phenomenon, one should embrace the less complicated formulation."
OK, that's my take on a supreme being. I would be interested in hearing criticisms, elaborations or whatever thoughts you might have on the subject.
Comment Posted By Jonathan On 3.01.2007 @ 14:42
Secondly, as regards the superstitious “Fred†being sucked up into the sky, I would argue that it is more rational to believe in some divine being – ANY divine being – than not to do so.
So, where did the divine being come from?
It's turtles, all the way down. :)
Comment Posted By Jonathan On 3.01.2007 @ 00:34
"not showing up to Christmas dinner at a conservative relative’s house."
I know plenty of families where differences in politics has caused a major rift and the problem lies with _both_ parties, not merely those on the left.
Hell, look at the Civil War, it divided brother against brother and father against son. And this wasn't just not showing up to Christmas dinner, it was people shooting and killing each other. And what was it really but politics?
So which side was the guilty party, the Confederate or the Union?
Comment Posted By Jonathan On 2.01.2007 @ 23:16
I'm an atheist and I don't care whether or not the book in question is in the park store as long as it is kept with the other mythological books. I would be against it being shelved with the scientifically accurate books though.
I would like to point out this piece of bigotry also:
http://www.robsherman.com/information/liberalnews/2004/0204.htm
"At a news conference in Chicago on August 27, 1987 (not 1988 as has been reported elsewhere), which I covered as a fully credentialed journalist, I asked Vice President Bush several questions. In response to one question, Bush said, "I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God.""
" Today, I contacted the Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas. I asked if there was any chance that such documents could possibly exist; if they did exist, was there any chance that the documents would be stored at the Bush Presidential Library"
"A team of archivists went to work on the matter right away. Within a couple of hours, they had found the documents. They are archived as Item # CF01193-002."
http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/
Comment Posted By Jonathan On 2.01.2007 @ 23:02
Take a look at this article from the Washington Post.
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/anthony_m_stevensarroyo/2006/12/
atheist_wannabes_vs_agnostic_t.html"Dogmatic Atheists and Cuddly Agnostics
I never met an atheist I could like. Surely, somewhere on this planet, there is a friendly atheist, but I haven’t bumped into one yet.The atheists who have crossed my path are obnoxious. They create the world in their own image and likeness, where only they are right or reasonable, and everyone else is either a fool or fanatic. (Any atheist who doubts him/herself enough to benefit someone else’s opinion is not a dogmatic atheist, but an agnostic: see below).
You can’t have a dialogue with dogmatic atheists. Because they are so sure they know everything, they never listen to intelligent people. They are mirror images of the religious fundamentalists, who -- despite their dogmatism -- at least have their enthusiasms in the right place. The worst thing for society would be to let any of them have power over the body politic. Scratch a dogmatic atheist and you likely will find a wannabe Robespierre or worse."
Substitute the word "Jew" for "atheist" in this article and tell me whether or not you think the Washington Post would have printed it.
This article has been up since December 27 and despite numerous calls to take it down as bigoted, it's still there.
Comment Posted By Jonathan On 2.01.2007 @ 22:45
SADDAM'S DEATH: A SAD ENDING TO A SAD CHAPTER IN HISTORY
Hey, KB, nice rewrite of history. Little history lesson may do you good. Specifically, the Carter administration that set all of this into motion with the overthrow of the Shah.
Talk about rewriting history. What really "set all of this into motion" was the CIA overthrow of the democratically elected Mossadegh government and the subsequent installation of the US puppet, the Shah, in 1953. Note that Dwight David Eisenhower was president in 1953 and that he was a Republican.
Comment Posted By Jonathan On 3.01.2007 @ 08:35
Hmmm.. I was struck by how much the video resembled the video of the (horrible) beheading of Nick Berg. Hooded executioners, a definite lack of solemnity for this exceedingly solemn moment.
It would have been far, far better if Saddam's "trial" had been objectively fair rather than the sham show trial that it actually was. Not too far from some of the "trials" in the former Soviet Union or (at possible risk of invoking Godwin's Law) Nazi Germany. An objectively fair trial would have left those who still support Saddam and his cohort with no reason to be able to claim him as a martyr.
The execution of Saddam on the Sunni Eid-ul-Adha or Feast of Sacrifice which commemorates Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son Isaac to God was a deliberate insult to Sunni Muslims around the world and specifically those Sunnis in Iraq. I really don't think that anything other than evil can come from such a provocative and unneccesary act.
I'm personally opposed to the death penalty and consider it barbaric. After all Jesus said:
John 8
3And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
Note that the woman had violated Mosaic Law and putting her to death was the official Mosaic penalty for that crime.
I will shed no tears for Saddam, he was a man who let his evil side posess him and he committed many horrendous crimes. But by allowing Saddam to be put to death I feel that we have become, in some small manner, like him. The crime for which Saddam was convicted was that of taking bloody vengeance for an act committed against him. To likewise take bloody vengeance against Saddam does not speak well of us I think.
Romans 12:
18If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.
19Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
20Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.
I realize that I'm in the minority in the USA in opposing capital punishment and I can live with that. Obviously there are those who, like Saddam, do not deserve to have a place in society and should be incarcerated in order that they may not commit further crimes. But I feel that taking bloody vengeance, no matter how justified we may feel it is, demeans us as individuals and as a people.
I also feel that torture is evil demeans us and I feel that solitary confinment is a form of psychological torture. I do not wish to see Saddam tortured either physically or psychologically since that only makes us more like him.
Matthew 5
43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
48Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
For what it's worth, I'm an agnostic atheist. But I had an excellent religious education as a child (perhaps that's why I *am* an atheist) and feel that there is much wisdom in the Bible, particularly in the words of Jesus.
Have a happy and safe New Years everyone!
Jonathan
Comment Posted By Jonathan On 31.12.2006 @ 15:11
THE TROUBLE WITH HARRY...AND GEORGE
"John Presley Said:
12:36 pmEvery time I find myself longing to support President Bush and his policies, he absolutely stuns me with his blunt lack of judgment. Reid is just being himself."
Why is it that Bush is merely showing bad judgement while Reid is just being himself?
Do you have any evidence that Bush is not just being himself?
Comment Posted By Jonathan On 1.01.2007 @ 22:03
