Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
Chatter / Re: More red than blue, blue leads how? US elections.
« Last post by Timo on October 22, 2016, 05:10:16 PM »
I have to ask here, do ANY of the developed countries you're referring to have a system where citizens can get more than one vote?  And if so, do all citizens get the same number of votes?

Nah, our system does drastically over value the votes of people that live in small states like Wyoming. That's true in Senate elections where their vote is worth the same as about 32 New Yorkers or 66 Californians. And it's true in the Electoral College since that inequity is built into it.
Chatter / Re: More red than blue, blue leads how? US elections.
« Last post by Timo on October 22, 2016, 05:04:55 PM »
Notice how many red states it would take to offset the 55 votes of California if it goes blue.

Yup. I'm from LA County. That's 10 million people right there. Even small, suburban counties like Ventura county have more people than a lot of states. (Just googled it. They're at about 900k people.) But we don't take up a whole lot of space on the map. The same thing is especially true for that whole North East corridor, which is much more densely populated than the rest of the country. Sometimes people use maps like this to convey this:

The control of California is locked by Democrats. Not only is the governor a Democrat, but the Democrats have supermajorities in both the state bodies (senate and house), which sidelines the Republicans. They are totally irrelevant. If every elected Republican in the state bodies decided to never show up for work, there would still be a quorum of Democrats to conduct business.

Yeah this isn't due to gerrymandering. We were very gerrymandered. (One of our Congressional districts, held by the honorable Lois Capps in the aforementioned Ventura County was called the "ribbon of shame" even.) But we now have a non partisan system of drawing our district lines. That's both on the state and federal level. That was actually why I was able to do a little work in politics here. All of a sudden these non competitive districts became competitive. But nah, what's going on is that the Republican party in California basically collapsed. It's really a preview of what the national party can expect if they don't change course post-Trump. If you look across the state now, aside from places like Orange County, Republican support is pretty much limited to rural inland counties. And this year, it's looking like they might lose Orange County. Even Darryl Issa in his safe district in San Diego County is looking vulnerable.
General Religious Discussion / Re: Street epistemology
« Last post by eh! on October 22, 2016, 04:57:15 PM »
...there are some videos on YouTube and I forget the guy's name that started it

Peter Boghossian

No, Anthony Magnabosco (spelling?).

He is very gentle and respectful. More like hippy Jesus than most evangelical fuk heads.
OCG is a nice guy, from what we have seen of him, and yep, he is a rare one.  However, he has the same false conclusions that other theists have, and that isn't very nice at all.  It's easy to want him not to be like other Christians since he has been fairly decent and give him a pass.  What I don't know is if that is warranted. 
Chatter / Re: "What are you listening to now"... take three...
« Last post by Timo on October 22, 2016, 04:22:13 PM »
Going through some records. This made me think of you heathens.

General Religious Discussion / Re: For The Atheists: If God Told You...
« Last post by eh! on October 22, 2016, 02:59:26 PM »
In all honesty skep, the carm argument is clearly a blatant deceit.

Satan deceives.
General Religious Discussion / Re: For The Atheists: If God Told You...
« Last post by wheels5894 on October 22, 2016, 02:37:39 PM »
Sorry, Skep, but there's no way out of Jesus leaving his followers with the Torah to follow as it pointed out above. The only hope of a way out is to suggest, as others have, that Matthew is writing to a Jewish audience and has Jesus, in his text, insist on the Torah being followed as this would suit his audience. This would allow one to escape the needs for most people to do this.

Alternatively, there is Acts 15, which I mentioned earlier, that let's non-Jews off the hook and to follow a very limited couple of rules. The snag is that it doesn't come from Jesus - unless you conceded that Jesus was, to a large extent, the invention of Paul, of course, and I doubt to would concede that.

Incidentally, a better translation would have Jesus completing the Torah rather than fulfilling it though this is a bit nitpicking.
General Religious Discussion / Re: For The Atheists: If God Told You...
« Last post by jaimehlers on October 22, 2016, 02:07:23 PM »
CARM is quote-mining the Bible to make that argument, skeptic.  If you look at the whole passage (Matthew 5:17-20), the intent becomes much more clear.

"17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

Jesus was in no way excusing his followers from having to abide by Jewish law.  If anything, he was telling them they would have to do better at it than the Pharisees and other teachers if they wanted to get into heaven at all.  Kind of puts the whole idea of Gentiles not having to practice Jewish law into perspective, doesn't it?  Not to mention that CARM is busy misleading every Christian who relies on them into following practices that will ultimately screw them over as far as heaven is concerned.
I agree, I'm not saying OCG is a bad guy, but, there is some value in looking at that wording, and thought process.

Atheism = Stop growth and exploration... be close minded to things that can't be proven by science... close your eyes to new possibilities.

It's weird because most of us think of religion as being close minded, being afraid to look at what's wrong with the Bible, being afraid to recognize when the answers given by apologists fall glaringly short, being afraid to continue to stand up and say... "No, if God ordered evil things, God is evil.   No, we don't need an ancient myth to have morals... (and so on)".

Most of us would believe in God tomorrow if god was real and demonstrated it.   That's pretty open minded.

On the flip side, god has essentially been proven to be equal to all other imagined myths... equal... performs just as well as...  there's plenty of evidence that a magical being is not required for anything we see around us, including life.   There are lots of contradictions and impossibilities about god that are hand waved with "well, he's mysterious".

I think it's close minded not to consider what those implications mean.    i.e.  Like a child refusing to believe the tooth fairy isn't real.   That's close minded, right?  Not open minded?

When you consider top scientists like Neil deGrasse Tyson:       You can tell by listening to the man, he just loves to learn, he loves to discover, he loves to be proven wrong... he loves to find out what the real answers are.

James Randi.   Penn & Teller.    The guys from Mythbusters.

All of those people are among the most "Go through life with eyes wide open, experiencing mystery and finding answers"  Kinds of guys you can think of.

So yeah, I'm not offended by Old Church Guy, I can't speak for everyone but I think he's well liked and respected by most of us.   But it does sort of illustrate what's wrong with thinking of atheism in the way he did when he was at his crossroads.   
General Religious Discussion / Re: For The Atheists: If God Told You...
« Last post by skeptic54768 on October 22, 2016, 12:59:20 PM »
How does jeebus do away with the old laws when he "said" he wasn't???

This question of Jesus somehow 'doing away' with the old Torah is something of a misunderstanding of the texts. In the Sermon on the MOunt in Matthew, Jesus says he has come to complete the Law (Torah) and continues that not a 'jot or tittle of the Law will be altered. As a practicing Jew, Jesus is clearly statuing that the Law stands and should be followed.

In fact it is not until Acts 15 - the confrontation of Paul and Peter - that an 'agreement' is made in which Gentile converts need to accept the whole of the Torah but merely refrain from eating blood and meat offered to idols. This is an agreement between those we call apostle and not anything that Jesus ever signed up to.

Skep, where's you evidence on this, please?

"In Matthew 5:17 Jesus is speaking about the Old Testament principles and authority of rule and revelation.  When Jesus said that He came to fulfill the law, He came to establish it and demonstrate how it pointed to Him and how He would live it perfectly."
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10