User Tag List

View Poll Results: I believe in...

Voters
74. You may not vote on this poll
  • Abstinence before Marriage

    19 25.68%
  • Fidelity in Marriage

    58 78.38%
  • Being against Pornography

    15 20.27%
  • Being against Homosexual/Bisexual/Transgender behavior

    9 12.16%
  • Patriotism

    12 16.22%
  • Religious Freedom

    67 90.54%
  • Right to Life: Against Abortion and Euthanasia

    19 25.68%
  • Being against Addictive Drugs

    27 36.49%
  • Being against Alcohol

    10 13.51%
  • Being against Gambling

    14 18.92%
  • Being intolerant to any behavior that may destroy individuals, families, and our culture.

    15 20.27%
  • Discrimination as the wisdom of choosing between good and evil.

    9 12.16%
  • The Ends justifying the Means.

    10 13.51%
Multiple Choice Poll.
First 71516171819 Last

Results 161 to 170 of 230

  1. #161
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    11,925

    Default

    Yes, I'm a lot like Picard. (Except I'm not a British person with a French name.)

    My point being why would people want to practically kill themselves when all they had to do was show a little more patriotism? You'll be dead before the change happens...

  2. #162
    Senior Member gretch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Posts
    111

    Default

    [QUOTE=sassafrassquatch;86509]
    A man is not idle because he is absorbed in thought. There is visible labour and there is invisible labour.
    .
    -Victor Hugo

  3. #163
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gretch View Post
    Thank you for the clarification. I value your thoughts. I hope that I can express myself so clearly. I definitely agree with your positive assertions theory, though I find it incredibly valuable to note that not all Christians beliefs about Christ are identical. For instance I, break down the statements, claims and so on and so forth and hold them to rigorous testing for morality and accuracy, and I feel confident in them to define a moral code to live by for myself. so I consider myself a Deist who just so happens to believe in Christ.
    Oh, I agree... just saying that atheists have no particular grouping that can be associated to it... rather like saying "non-ghost believers" doesn't assert much.

    I was wondering if you could tell me a little more about 'new' athesim and how it differs from...er... old(?) atheism? a-theism, and I'll have to look up the etymology when i have more time.
    It's not really new - there is no true meaning of "atheism" as it was created as an insult (godless). The most modern (atheist vs the actual latin derivative) came to be as a label for those that disagreed with theistic (doctrine) beliefs. The philosophical definition now ranges between "strong" and "weak" atheism... more or less the difference between proclaiming no belief in anything theistic (for example, saying that Santa Claus does not exist) vs a general lack of belief (for example, holding no opinion on if Santa Claus exists). This differs from agnostic which is skeptical of all claimed knowledge.

    For the most part, the public views atheists 4 main camps - strong atheist, weak atheist, weak agnostic atheist, agnostic. You do get some overlap of strong agnostic atheists (ie: Dawkin's probability approach would very loosely be called agnostic) but they are rare and more a technicality. Each would be a gradient to some degree... akin to Dawkin's probability, but at an intuitive level.

    Those four camps would break down as;

    Strong atheist - There is(are) no god(s).
    Weak atheist - I don't know anything about god(s)
    Weak agnostic atheist - The evidence supporting god is weak and therefore I cannot know anything about god(s)
    Agnostic - The evidence supporting god(s) is weak (but I do or do not believe)

    Atheists don't consider agnostics to be "atheists" at all, which they aren't really since agnostic doesn't say anything about the actual belief/conclusion.

    FWIW, I fall somewhere closer to strong agnostic atheist, though not as strong as many do. I'm more comfortable just not knowing and not assuming knowledge until it has been presented. I'm not sure where I'd fall in as far as possitve assertions go, but probably some combination of the standard naturalism and humanism. I strongly prefer pragmaticism and believe that humans have a fundamental cognitive error that encourages assumptions on the part of us being "special" and having a form of safety net to our actions. So while I still fall under atheist, I'm going to be dramatically different than, say, theravada or something similar.

  4. #164
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    11,925

    Default

    What both the atheistic evolutionists and the religious creationists have are theories, nothing more. Evolution is considered fact these days, but in the end, it's just a very convincing theory that is plausible fact, but not definite.

    (Who knows? Maybe the world was magically created in 7 earth days.)

    And any humanist is both a coward and an idiot. It's a shame because this is the bias that plagues higher education, which is supposed to be unbiased.

    My advice is that neither creationism nor evolution nor theory of any kind should be taught in academic settings. School should just give me the facts, ma'am. Let me come up with the theories on my own...then I can distort the facts myself!

    The trouble with theory is it's a matter of perception.

  5. #165
    RETIRED CzeCze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    GONE
    Posts
    9,051

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uberfuhrer View Post
    Um, I wasn't talking about accents. (with a thick accent, yes, but they learned English), they didn't expect us to change things for them. The majority of the people speak English in this country, and in a democracy, majority rules (though most liberals and democrats seem to have forgotten about that). English should be the official language of the United States. It is only logical.

    The same principle applies should an English-speaker relocate to French-speaking country. They should learn French. That should be the first thing one does when moving to a country that does not speak their language. Personally, I have no intention of going to France, so I am not going to waste my time going there.

    The difference between British English, Australian English, Canadian English, and American English are not obvious enough; the differences in speech patterns remain comprehensible.
    Quote Originally Posted by Uberfuhrer View Post
    We've always spoken English.
    Actually the original peoples of North America did not speak English, they spoke many distinct languages in distinct language families that I'm guessing don't even fall into the Indo-European family. The first Europeans to make contact with the 'new world' did not speak English. Columbus did not speak English. Neither did Magellan or Balboa. The Spanish were the first to colonize what we now call the Americas and set up the infrastructure (you know, topple governments, kill locals, exploit natural resources all that good stuff) that later waves of European immigrant powers would build on. Even the first British colonists spoke a form of English (aside from accents) that would be considered mangled by today's standards. The French also had a strong colonizing influence in North America (just look at Quebec and funny French names around the Great Lakes area and Creole French in the Louisiana area) at the same time as the English.

    The Spanish and then Mexico controlled and vied for control with the US (or what later become the US) for vast parts of the country. Just look at CA and Texas (which by the way, probably also creat the biggest state chauvinists)

    Etc. etc. etc.

    That's what I meant by reopening a history book.

    As far as the majority rules thing -- see, in some cities and counties immigrants and the children of immigrants ARE already the majority or else the majority of LABORERS. In a generation or three what is considered 'minority' will be the 'majority'.

    Also, there is huge distinction between physical minority, being actually smaller in numbers, and disenfranchised minority meaning regardless of physical presence not having proportional agency in society.

    I don't disagree that priveleged, educated people like the majority of Americans who have the option of living abroad should take advantage of their resources and learn the local language. But, unless you are an interpreter or work for the UN or NGO and it is part of your job description, you'll most likely end up being an expat who maybe learns a few helpful everyday phrases, if that. The difference is, as an American expat, you have the luxury of not having to assimilate or conform to the local culture or even learn anything about it and live outside of it in a protected, even glamorous way.

    Totally different contexts between an American living abroad (especially to developing countries) for 'fun, to find oneself, to broaden horizons' and immigrants from developing countries coming to America for economic and political relief where a level of assimilation is necessary for survival.

  6. #166
    Senior Member Roger Mexico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uberfuhrer View Post
    What both the atheistic evolutionists and the religious creationists have are theories, nothing more. Evolution is considered fact these days, but in the end, it's just a very convincing theory that is plausible fact, but not definite.

    (Who knows? Maybe the world was magically created in 7 earth days.)

    And any humanist is both a coward and an idiot. It's a shame because this is the bias that plagues higher education, which is supposed to be unbiased.

    My advice is that neither creationism nor evolution nor theory of any kind should be taught in academic settings. School should just give me the facts, ma'am. Let me come up with the theories on my own...then I can distort the facts myself!

    The trouble with theory is it's a matter of perception.
    Fail.

  7. #167
    4x9 cascadeco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    4 so/sp
    Posts
    6,932

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    Those four camps would break down as;

    Strong atheist - There is(are) no god(s).
    Weak atheist - I don't know anything about god(s)
    Weak agnostic atheist - The evidence supporting god is weak and therefore I cannot know anything about god(s)
    Agnostic - The evidence supporting god(s) is weak (but I do or do not believe)
    Thanks for the summary pt. I call myself Agnostic for simplicity sake, I suppose, because I don't really think I'm anything. ;-) But given your list, I probably allign closer to Agnostic atheist.

    I'm basically willing to acknowledge that anything's possible but there's no way for me to know, if there is a God there's no way any religion could hope to capture the essence, if there is a God I absolutely don't believe in any anthropomorphic vision of it (if anything I'd believe in a God=Universe thing), and the world/universe actually makes tons of sense to me without bringing any God into the picture; and less sense with a God. I have no idea what will happen when I die, if anything...and what happens, happens. :-) And I'm comfortable with that.
    "...On and on and on and on he strode, far out over the sands, singing wildly to the sea, crying to greet the advent of the life that had cried to him." - James Joyce

    My Photography and Watercolor Fine Art Prints!!! Cascade Colors Fine Art Prints
    https://docs.google.com/uc?export=do...Gd5N3NZZE52QjQ

  8. #168
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    11,925

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CzeCze View Post
    Actually the original peoples of North America did not speak English, they spoke many distinct languages in distinct language families that I'm guessing don't even fall into the Indo-European family. The first Europeans to make contact with the 'new world' did not speak English. Columbus did not speak English. Neither did Magellan or Balboa. The Spanish were the first to colonize what we now call the Americas and set up the infrastructure (you know, topple governments, kill locals, exploit natural resources all that good stuff) that later waves of European immigrant powers would build on. Even the first British colonists spoke a form of English (aside from accents) that would be considered mangled by today's standards. The French also had a strong colonizing influence in North America (just look at Quebec and funny French names around the Great Lakes area and Creole French in the Louisiana area) at the same time as the English.

    The Spanish and then Mexico controlled and vied for control with the US (or what later become the US) for vast parts of the country. Just look at CA and Texas (which by the way, probably also creat the biggest state chauvinists)

    Etc. etc. etc.

    That's what I meant by reopening a history book.

    As far as the majority rules thing -- see, in some cities and counties immigrants and the children of immigrants ARE already the majority or else the majority of LABORERS. In a generation or three what is considered 'minority' will be the 'majority'.

    Also, there is huge distinction between physical minority, being actually smaller in numbers, and disenfranchised minority meaning regardless of physical presence not having proportional agency in society.

    I don't disagree that priveleged, educated people like the majority of Americans who have the option of living abroad should take advantage of their resources and learn the local language. But, unless you are an interpreter or work for the UN or NGO and it is part of your job description, you'll most likely end up being an expat who maybe learns a few helpful everyday phrases, if that. The difference is, as an American expat, you have the luxury of not having to assimilate or conform to the local culture or even learn anything about it and live outside of it in a protected, even glamorous way.

    Totally different contexts between an American living abroad (especially to developing countries) for 'fun, to find oneself, to broaden horizons' and immigrants from developing countries coming to America for economic and political relief where a level of assimilation is necessary for survival.
    The original peoples of North America are dead.

    The English speakers won. They won the war with the Mexicans, so we got their land. Hence, that land shall speak English.

    And your logic is sick. Why shouldn't an American living abroad have to learn the language of the country they're living in? It isn't logical for another country to change its way of life for those of whom are ultimately outsiders. Learn the language of the land you are staying at, or be misunderstood.

    And saying a rich American shouldn't have to learn a new language when living in a foreign land (non-English speaking) is pretty much reinforcing the stereotypical image of the fat, lazy American idiot.

    It's a fact that most Americans speak English, so English should be the official language both now and the lands in future invasions.

    Should France or Germany have to change their language for an American immigrant? I think not.

  9. #169
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    961

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uberfuhrer View Post
    What both the atheistic evolutionists and the religious creationists have are theories, nothing more. Evolution is considered fact these days, but in the end, it's just a very convincing theory that is plausible fact, but not definite.

    (Who knows? Maybe the world was magically created in 7 earth days.)

    And any humanist is both a coward and an idiot. It's a shame because this is the bias that plagues higher education, which is supposed to be unbiased.

    My advice is that neither creationism nor evolution nor theory of any kind should be taught in academic settings. School should just give me the facts, ma'am. Let me come up with the theories on my own...then I can distort the facts myself!

    The trouble with theory is it's a matter of perception.
    No. Creationists have a myth, evolutionary theory has overwhelming evidence. I think you mean “hypothesis” not “theory”. A theory isn't a guess, theories are tested and supported by evidence. Gravity, quantum mechanics, relativity are all theories but they make predictions about behavior which are consistently verified. You may want to do some reading before you go off spouting nonsense.

  10. #170
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    11,925

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sassafrassquatch View Post
    No. Creationists have a myth, evolutionary theory has overwhelming evidence. I think you mean “hypothesis” not “theory”. A theory isn't a guess, theories are tested and supported by evidence. Gravity, quantum mechanics, relativity are all theories but they make predictions about behavior which are consistently verified. You may want to do some reading before you go off spouting nonsense.
    Prove it. You can't believe what you read anymore than you can believe what is said in the media. The only way to have proof is by personal experience, and I'm even skeptical of that. Reality plays tricks on you.

    I have learned that the only things I should trust are my own conceptions.

Similar Threads

  1. [NT] As an NT, do you hate the metaphysical values of recent society?
    By danseen in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-01-2013, 01:21 PM
  2. The Fudjack-Dinkelaker Poll result
    By Mal12345 in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-22-2011, 01:54 PM
  3. How would you ascertain the vintage value of an art piece?
    By dagenhard in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-22-2010, 04:49 AM
  4. [ENTP] ENTPs and the novelty value of people
    By EcK in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 12-16-2009, 04:28 PM
  5. The Federal Reserve Poll
    By Annuit Coeptis in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 05-15-2008, 09:00 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO