Donald Trump

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I'm tired of Californians and New Yorkers attempting to dictate policy for the entire nation under the guise of "we know better than you." Even if they do, what business is it of theirs, so long as things in their state are as they like them? I'd much rather have a return to state politics mattering, a return to having a problem with the LOCAL Christians, then having big money lobbyists control everything from Washington - which is what really happens, neoliberalism and neoconservativism, not the progressive dream they promise you.

ya, I mean I get it, I kind of agree. All I am saying is, to those who care about gay rights, womens reproductive rights etc and are worried about whats coming, youre always going to get that with religious people who believe in a book that goes against those rights having a big say. If you feel thats a problem, then religion is your problem.

Personally Im with you in a lot of ways, we have an awfully londoncentric thing going on here too that is really not good. But I do also still care about equal rights for gender, sexuality, race etc and free thinking people being oppressed by the insane dogma of brainwashed medieval cultists. I know thats sort of unfashionable right now as we are all laughing at the left tripping up and faceplanting in a pile of its down dogshit but against popular opinion I do actually have morals I deeply believe in as an atheist and unlike modern Christians I still actually believe in my beliefs. Sure, if it means crushing the increasingly centralized fascist rule of the rich then you take the rough with the smooth, but its still an issue and theres still a bunch of backwards ppl at the heart of it.

Im gonna call em out, same way Im gonna call out Sharia law and all other absurdities because if people dont then these things fester.

"

Snorkle_uk wrote:

The west doesnt lick Islams boots, its slaughtering them by the millions.

I didn't say the west, but leftism. "Cultural marxism" is all worried to not offend Muslims, but at the same time behaves rabidly toward Christians. Also, most muslims get killed by other muslims. "We" (= mostly you: UK & US) just messed up the place a bit (in favour of islamic fundamentalists - thank you Obama, Bush & Hillary).

"

Snorkle_uk wrote:

No they are stupid too.

That's the difference between you and me - I don't think they are stupid. Sure, there's plenty of silly stories in religious texts, but I can't pretend to offer a better guideline to people, than thousands of years of religious practice & philosophy. As I've said, "ideological atheism" has already shown that it produces a lot more death & destruction (cultural & economical), than religions.

It's precisely because Christians were able to dismiss some of the stuff in the Bible, as "stories not meant to be taken literally", that the West was able to progress without the need to "dump religion". Compare that to Islam, where 100s of millions of people still believe and literally apply violent stuff from the Quran.

First of all im agnostic, but i rather take a religious society over atheism.
Almost all of vocal atheist´s make the comen mistake, that they try to reflekt there way of thought onto other´s.
Evrybody is diffrent, you can maybe life with your believe, other´s can´t. Hope is a better term than believe. Hedonism follow´s atheism, a complete downfall of morality, despair combined with opportunities for personal gain.

Abortion´s are absolutly disgusting, it´t very sad if someone can´t see it.
Evrything in live has consequences, so has sex.
It´s natural that human´s want pleasure ok, but in that case you can potentialy harm a innocent third person. Like how many time´s does one have to hear, use protection if you don´t want to get pragnant or deseases.
A women carrying the baby, does not make here the Baby. Ok, women get pregnant and not the men, it is what it is, both gender have a fair share of priviliges and problem´s.

@Pwnzors87: Fist off, the thing with abortions is nowhere near as simple as you and many others make it to be. It mostly revolves around what you define as a person. The fetus in its earliest stages could be defined so but it's debatable at best. Things are not as clear and straight-cut as people want them to be and that's what causes all the drama. I know people like it when everything fits nicely into a simplistic, black-and-white picture of the world, but reality is in shades of grey (if someone makes a 50 shades joke, I'll slap them - and not in the pleasant way!).

About atheists, they aren't too different from religious people. They both delude themselves into believing they have it all figured out, which is equal parts funny and tragic. However, atheists also tend to be more condescending, at least nowadays and in non-Muslim countries. Not to be confused with agnostic theists or atheists who say 'I don't really know, but I suspect or at least I choose to believe it's so or so.'

"

deathflower wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I'm tired of Californians and New Yorkers attempting to dictate policy for the entire nation under the guise of "we know better than you." Even if they do, what business is it of theirs, so long as things in their state are as they like them? I'd much rather have a return to state politics mattering, a return to having a problem with the LOCAL Christians, then having big money lobbyists control everything from Washington - which is what really happens, neoliberalism and neoconservativism, not the progressive dream they promise you.

Oh really? The hypocrisy is astonishing. The right is doing the same.

I thought I covered that with the "neoconservativism" part. But yes, politicians on both sides do it and it needs to stop. The difference that I see is: the actual people, the Democratic voters versus Republican voters, differ on what they want. The Democrats' base actively want a big federal government that controls anything - and, thus, erodes state and municipal power. The Republican base, especially the Tea Party movement, actively want a smaller federal government, they want to power to return to local government... and they've been betrayed by their party, over and over and over again.

im still not tired of winning! maga!

"

Pwnzors87 wrote:

First of all im agnostic, but i rather take a religious society over atheism.
Almost all of vocal atheist´s make the comen mistake, that they try to reflekt there way of thought onto other´s.

I used to be a proud agnostic decades ago. Born again Christian now. I understand both worlds and thus both viewpoints very, very well. And there is a big difference between agnosticism and atheism: the former acknowledges we can't make a black & white choice either way (ie: personal choice, don't force the masses either way), and the latter is dead set on proving that God doesn't exist.

That said, I agree with you: a society that follows guidelines set forth within a religion is much more reliable and easier to gauge than a society with no guidelines for a moral compass other than what seems right at the time.

"

Pwnzors87 wrote:

Abortion´s are absolutly disgusting, it´t very sad if someone can´t see it.
Evrything in live has consequences, so has sex.

Indeed, they are disgusting. Anyone who wants to defend them should see exactly what goes on, see the hacking up of a human life, and experience the mother's grief and regret right after the procedure. Even the most hardcore pro-choice women getting an abortion are struck with grief and a sense of loss immediately after the procedure, even if later they feel different and are still pro-choice.

Personally I am pro-life, but I used to be pro-choice until I really understood what the process involved. Unlike many of my other Cristian friends, who are pro-life to the point of conception, I am only against the horrible abortion procedure that's medical or chemcial, but support the morning-after pill and early medication-based abortion, which is much more humane. The medication-based abortion is 7-9 weeks or earlier.

Donald Trump is very similar to my stance on abortion, as in he was pro-choice earlier in his life, and now pro-life with exceptions.

I believe the government should outlaw abortion after some point in time, probably around or before Carnegie stag 12, around 4 weeks or less, right before organs form. Then debate should be where to draw that line between legal and illegal, not whether to have the line or not at all. Right now that line is generally around 24-26 weeks, which is when the womb's contents resembles that of an actual baby. It's sickening to allow abortion up to this timeframe.

The problem is that the liberal left and women's activists argue as if abortion is an all-or-nothing, either you allow it whenever or you don't. And that black & white approach is completely wrong. There is a point where the fetus resembles a human, and somewhere along that point there needs to be laws to prevent murdering an innocent life. If that point is say a month or so, that's plenty of time for a pregnant teen, rape victim, incest victim, etc. to seek medical help to initiate an abortion.

"

morbo wrote:

I can't pretend to offer a better guideline to people, than thousands of years of religious practice & philosophy.

Yes you can - and you don't need to pretend. A simple "I don't know" is an infinitely better guideline. More honest. Comports with reality and reason. Allows the investigation of questions with no pre-determined answers. Isn't subject to myriad contradictions.

Don't give into ancestor worship.

Prior to the Enlightenment people revered the ancient ones as knowing more than the contemporary man. Then we invented the library and realized that knowledge wasn't some brilliant marble sphere given out in full to people thousands of years prior that needed to be safeguarded from erosion. Rather, knowledge is a cumulative sediment that accrues each generation that we have the great privilege of building upon.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

deathflower wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I'm tired of Californians and New Yorkers attempting to dictate policy for the entire nation under the guise of "we know better than you." Even if they do, what business is it of theirs, so long as things in their state are as they like them? I'd much rather have a return to state politics mattering, a return to having a problem with the LOCAL Christians, then having big money lobbyists control everything from Washington - which is what really happens, neoliberalism and neoconservativism, not the progressive dream they promise you.

Oh really? The hypocrisy is astonishing. The right is doing the same.

I thought I covered that with the "neoconservativism" part. But yes, politicians on both sides do it and it needs to stop. The difference that I see is: the actual people, the Democratic voters versus Republican voters, differ on what they want. The Democrats' base actively want a big federal government that controls anything - and, thus, erodes state and municipal power. The Republican base, especially the Tea Party movement, actively want a smaller federal government, they want to power to return to local government... and they've been betrayed by their party, over and over and over again.

You are complaining about management style. There is nothing wrong with big government. The problem is they are often mismanaged. People blame the big government not the mismanagement.

"

innervation wrote:

Don't give into ancestor worship.

Prior to the Enlightenment people revered the ancient ones as knowing more than the contemporary man.

If you fail to learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it.

This isn't about "worship" of people who came before us, but rather understanding and appreciating the history of society as a whole. You learn from it, and for those past teachings with actual merit: you hold onto them.

There are good and bad points within any religion. But what history HAS PROVEN is that the good outweighs the bad. Without any sort of focus on the divine, you'll end up with societies that devalue life and promote individualism above all else. You need a balance of both individualism and collectivism to have a functioning society. Without either one our civilizations would collapse.

For example, I'd take a leader who truly knows all modern religions academically and has faith in one of them (even if it's not my faith) over a leader who eschews religion all together.