|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jan 8, 2018 4:26:53 GMT
Brandon
As usual you express your ignorance. Insane person, please go away.
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on Jan 8, 2018 4:31:06 GMT
You are a psychiatrist , NOW?
|
|
|
Post by yezziqa on Jan 8, 2018 5:40:13 GMT
And we donate by voting for a government that wants to help people But that's not really donating, is it. That's just being generous with other people's money, along with the expectation that you will be shown equal generosity if you ever need it. Donating is being generous with your own money without demanding that everybody else be generous with theirs at the same time. No, i'm being generous with all our money. My money, other peoples money, our money (like the companies we own together via the state). You see, being generous with foreign aid doesn't just help the people in the third world, it helps us all in the long run. Your president doesn't want immigrants right? Yet he bailed out of a program helping poor people with birth controll. In 20 years, we are going to be so many people in this planet unless we do something about it, that there will not be enough food. Yes, we in the west will probably have enough, but do you think that a little wall will stop hungry people from pouring in? But don't worry about that program, Sweden picked up your tab...yet again. And in this country we tend not to be selfish, when I was a high income taker, I thought it was wonderfull that I via my taxes could contibute with a lot of money that would help others. And sure, donating via your taxes is not the same as donating to companies, the money we donate tend to end up with the people that really need it instead of in some buisnessmans pocket.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jan 8, 2018 5:52:37 GMT
But that's not really donating, is it. That's just being generous with other people's money, along with the expectation that you will be shown equal generosity if you ever need it. Donating is being generous with your own money without demanding that everybody else be generous with theirs at the same time. No, i'm being generous with all our money. My money, other peoples money, our money (like the companies we own together via the state). You see, being generous with foreign aid doesn't just help the people in the third world, it helps us all in the long run. Your president doesn't want immigrants right? Yet he bailed out of a program helping poor people with birth controll. In 20 years, we are going to be so many people in this planet unless we do something about it, that there will not be enough food. Yes, we in the west will probably have enough, but do you think that a little wall will stop hungry people from pouring in? But don't worry about that program, Sweden picked up your tab...yet again. And in this country we tend not to be selfish, when I was a high income taker, I thought it was wonderfull that I via my taxes could contibute with a lot of money that would help others. And sure, donating via your taxes is not the same as donating to companies, the money we donate tend to end up with the people that really need it instead of in some buisnessmans pocket. Wow. Thanks, Sweden.
|
|
|
Post by yezziqa on Jan 8, 2018 5:55:05 GMT
Let me just say IKEA, H&M, Volvo and then you can guess if we have rich people here. And we have never been communists, not even socialists. I'm not seeing your point. (Maybe it would help if I turned the football game off.) Who is bearing the burden of foreign aid? In the United States there are people who pay no tax at all for various reasons including not earning very much. They might vote for all sorts of aid, foreign and domestic, at no cost to them whatever. The point is that we have some very rich people in Sweden as we have poor people. Like me, I have been sick for a long time, so I dont get much money every month. But my country takes care of me, they pay my rent, my electric bill, my insurances, my dental bills , my helthcare etc. They even buy me a new computer or washingmashine if i need one. But I used to be rich, and I loved helping people with my taxes. But the majority of our taxes come from our companies. Some we own together, others a privatly owned.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 8, 2018 12:19:29 GMT
It appears you're new to this game and a bit spoiled by the internet. Unless you can cite a "Richard Dawkins Children's Hospital" or something like it I'm way ahead at this point no matter how mountains are in Afghanistan. The "sharing impulses" game was designed to show atheists how stupid they are. As usual atheists fall for it. Maybe you shouldn't skip your turn. Can you explain what point you think you were making by mentioning St. Jude's Children's Research Hospital? Because it's almost like you read the name and just said to yourself "Oh look, a religious charity! Boy, I've got them atheists now!" Newsflash: St. Jude's is a private, non-profit corporation with no religious affiliation whatsoever. It's entirely secular . Sorry to burst your shiny new bubble. Because you seem like a sporting enough gentleman by some standards anyway I'm going to take some extra time to explain this sport to you. First let's address what so obviously marks you as an amateur. It is your need to file things into too few categories, to oversimplify things. You expect there to be "secular" or "religious" endeavors, one to the exclusion of the other. Reality is rarely so simple. In reality organizations will be more or less religious. Please notice what we are not doing here. We are not discussing how secular or religious the "Richard Dawkins Children's Hospital" is. I do not have to say anything like, "Just because it is named after an atheist doesn't mean has no religious support or predominantly religious support." I don't have to do that because there is no Richard Dawkins Children's Hospital at all. There are no hospitals with an atheist agenda of any formulation or expression. Neither are there any atheist schools in most advanced countries. However strongly you might feel that there are such organizations there remains the fact that there is no expression of atheism in them. Most public schools have religious studies even if they are cloaked in historical, political or cultural studies. I do understand that does not amount to any conclusion that there is or is not a god. You do not need to coach me. One public elementary school I attended used its bus system to send its students to nearby religious facilities of their parent's choice to receive two hours of religious training each week. That was the most "atheist" public school I every saw. What marks you as an amateur is your strong anxiety that a discussion is not proper because it fails to recognize the important "fact" that there is no god. There really are two different kinds of such amateurs. There are people who have an unusually strong anxiety that a discussion is not proper because it fails to recognize the "fact" that there is a god, for example that is particularly involved in current human endeavors. You call those amateurs "fundamentalists." We have been here many years now, but the most important lesson of the last two years is that atheists and fundamentalists are two sides of the same bad coin. You have the same problem, a crippling dependence on simplicity. The strong need to jump to conclusions leads to errors. You mistake trivial and inconclusive data for a scientific proof of anything. You fail to distinguish a glass from a crystal. The necessity of your assumptions causes you to ignore their unlikelihood. When a sound scientific proof is available you fail to see it. The science of intelligent design does not establish one way or the other the existence of any god that is active in current human endeavors. That is part of the proof. It is the failure to act, the failure to assemble life from inanimate matter today that constitutes the proof that inanimate agencies fail.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jan 8, 2018 12:31:45 GMT
BXXXXXX
As usual you express your ignorance. Maya!! I gotta call "foul" here. Cash has asked that we stop using that moniker in reference to him.... What ever the reasoning... Ya gotta honor that request.
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on Jan 8, 2018 16:54:50 GMT
Vegas
Even though you have called him Cash?
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jan 8, 2018 18:59:07 GMT
Vegas
Even though you have called him Cash? Well... Yeah. He doesn't have a problem being called Cash. No one is denying what he used to go by... While I don't think that has anything to do with his real name.... It might have "real world" ramifications that we don't know about. Let's keep this shit fun and friendly.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jan 8, 2018 19:19:12 GMT
Can you explain what point you think you were making by mentioning St. Jude's Children's Research Hospital? Because it's almost like you read the name and just said to yourself "Oh look, a religious charity! Boy, I've got them atheists now!" Newsflash: St. Jude's is a private, non-profit corporation with no religious affiliation whatsoever. It's entirely secular . Sorry to burst your shiny new bubble. Because you seem like a sporting enough gentleman by some standards anyway I'm going to take some extra time to explain this sport to you. First let's address what so obviously marks you as an amateur. It is your need to file things into too few categories, to oversimplify things. You expect there to be "secular" or "religious" endeavors, one to the exclusion of the other. Reality is rarely so simple. In reality organizations will be more or less religious. Please notice what we are not doing here. We are not discussing how secular or religious the "Richard Dawkins Children's Hospital" is. I do not have to say anything like, "Just because it is named after an atheist doesn't mean has no religious support or predominantly religious support." I don't have to do that because there is no Richard Dawkins Children's Hospital at all. There are no hospitals with an atheist agenda of any formulation or expression. Neither are there any atheist schools in most advanced countries. However strongly you might feel that there are such organizations there remains the fact that there is no expression of atheism in them. Most public schools have religious studies even if they are cloaked in historical, political or cultural studies. I do understand that does not amount to any conclusion that there is or is not a god. You do not need to coach me. One public elementary school I attended used its bus system to send its students to nearby religious facilities of their parent's choice to receive two hours of religious training each week. That was the most "atheist" public school I every saw. What marks you as an amateur is your strong anxiety that a discussion is not proper because it fails to recognize the important "fact" that there is no god. There really are two different kinds of such amateurs. There are people who have an unusually strong anxiety that a discussion is not proper because it fails to recognize the "fact" that there is a god, for example that is particularly involved in current human endeavors. You call those amateurs "fundamentalists." We have been here many years now, but the most important lesson of the last two years is that atheists and fundamentalists are two sides of the same bad coin. You have the same problem, a crippling dependence on simplicity. The strong need to jump to conclusions leads to errors. You mistake trivial and inconclusive data for a scientific proof of anything. You fail to distinguish a glass from a crystal. The necessity of your assumptions causes you to ignore their unlikelihood. When a sound scientific proof is available you fail to see it. The science of intelligent design does not establish one way or the other the existence of any god that is active in current human endeavors. That is part of the proof. It is the failure to act, the failure to assemble life from inanimate matter today that constitutes the proof that inanimate agencies fail. Concession noted. Better luck next time.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jan 8, 2018 19:24:00 GMT
Because you seem like a sporting enough gentleman by some standards anyway I'm going to take some extra time to explain this sport to you. First let's address what so obviously marks you as an amateur. It is your need to file things into too few categories, to oversimplify things. You expect there to be "secular" or "religious" endeavors, one to the exclusion of the other. Reality is rarely so simple. In reality organizations will be more or less religious. Please notice what we are not doing here. We are not discussing how secular or religious the "Richard Dawkins Children's Hospital" is. I do not have to say anything like, "Just because it is named after an atheist doesn't mean has no religious support or predominantly religious support." I don't have to do that because there is no Richard Dawkins Children's Hospital at all. There are no hospitals with an atheist agenda of any formulation or expression. Neither are there any atheist schools in most advanced countries. However strongly you might feel that there are such organizations there remains the fact that there is no expression of atheism in them. Most public schools have religious studies even if they are cloaked in historical, political or cultural studies. I do understand that does not amount to any conclusion that there is or is not a god. You do not need to coach me. One public elementary school I attended used its bus system to send its students to nearby religious facilities of their parent's choice to receive two hours of religious training each week. That was the most "atheist" public school I every saw. What marks you as an amateur is your strong anxiety that a discussion is not proper because it fails to recognize the important "fact" that there is no god. There really are two different kinds of such amateurs. There are people who have an unusually strong anxiety that a discussion is not proper because it fails to recognize the "fact" that there is a god, for example that is particularly involved in current human endeavors. You call those amateurs "fundamentalists." We have been here many years now, but the most important lesson of the last two years is that atheists and fundamentalists are two sides of the same bad coin. You have the same problem, a crippling dependence on simplicity. The strong need to jump to conclusions leads to errors. You mistake trivial and inconclusive data for a scientific proof of anything. You fail to distinguish a glass from a crystal. The necessity of your assumptions causes you to ignore their unlikelihood. When a sound scientific proof is available you fail to see it. The science of intelligent design does not establish one way or the other the existence of any god that is active in current human endeavors. That is part of the proof. It is the failure to act, the failure to assemble life from inanimate matter today that constitutes the proof that inanimate agencies fail. Concession noted. Better luck next time. You have the mind of an immature little kid, not unlike gadreel. Why, the two of you could get together and play "I know you are but what am I?" all day long.
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Jan 8, 2018 19:24:17 GMT
Because you seem like a sporting enough gentleman by some standards anyway I'm going to take some extra time to explain this sport to you. First let's address what so obviously marks you as an amateur. It is your need to file things into too few categories, to oversimplify things. You expect there to be "secular" or "religious" endeavors, one to the exclusion of the other. Reality is rarely so simple. In reality organizations will be more or less religious. Please notice what we are not doing here. We are not discussing how secular or religious the "Richard Dawkins Children's Hospital" is. I do not have to say anything like, "Just because it is named after an atheist doesn't mean has no religious support or predominantly religious support." I don't have to do that because there is no Richard Dawkins Children's Hospital at all. There are no hospitals with an atheist agenda of any formulation or expression. Neither are there any atheist schools in most advanced countries. However strongly you might feel that there are such organizations there remains the fact that there is no expression of atheism in them. Most public schools have religious studies even if they are cloaked in historical, political or cultural studies. I do understand that does not amount to any conclusion that there is or is not a god. You do not need to coach me. One public elementary school I attended used its bus system to send its students to nearby religious facilities of their parent's choice to receive two hours of religious training each week. That was the most "atheist" public school I every saw. What marks you as an amateur is your strong anxiety that a discussion is not proper because it fails to recognize the important "fact" that there is no god. There really are two different kinds of such amateurs. There are people who have an unusually strong anxiety that a discussion is not proper because it fails to recognize the "fact" that there is a god, for example that is particularly involved in current human endeavors. You call those amateurs "fundamentalists." We have been here many years now, but the most important lesson of the last two years is that atheists and fundamentalists are two sides of the same bad coin. You have the same problem, a crippling dependence on simplicity. The strong need to jump to conclusions leads to errors. You mistake trivial and inconclusive data for a scientific proof of anything. You fail to distinguish a glass from a crystal. The necessity of your assumptions causes you to ignore their unlikelihood. When a sound scientific proof is available you fail to see it. The science of intelligent design does not establish one way or the other the existence of any god that is active in current human endeavors. That is part of the proof. It is the failure to act, the failure to assemble life from inanimate matter today that constitutes the proof that inanimate agencies fail. Concession noted. Better luck next time. That was a staggering amount of words to obfuscate the lack of any answer.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jan 8, 2018 19:26:53 GMT
Concession noted. Better luck next time. You have the mind of an immature little kid, not unlike gadreel. Why, the two of you could get together and play "I know you are but what am I?" all day long. You owe the entire world new irony meters.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jan 8, 2018 19:30:59 GMT
Concession noted. Better luck next time. That was a staggering amount of words to obfuscate the lack of any answer. Arlonthink - "How do I get out of this without admitting I had my ass handed to me? I know - WORD SALAD!!!"
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on Jan 8, 2018 20:56:08 GMT
Vegas
Why are you taking sides? That was a lot of nerve to post BXXXXXX. If you are going to call me out, then call out Brandon for questioning my sanity.
I will quote you.
I said nothing to him to trigger that response as I only told the Hx of St. Jude's Hospital.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 8, 2018 21:14:58 GMT
Concession noted. Better luck next time. You have the mind of an immature little kid, not unlike gadreel. Why, the two of you could get together and play "I know you are but what am I?" all day long. Coming from you little miss topsy turvy, that is a great compliment. Thanks, I know it must be hard when you are so intimidated by my intelligence.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jan 8, 2018 21:23:49 GMT
Vegas
Why are you taking sides? That was a lot of nerve to post BXXXXXX. If you are going to call me out, then call out Brandon for questioning my sanity.
I will quote you.
I said nothing to him to trigger that response as I only told the Hx of St. Jude's Hospital.
I'm not really taking sides... Hell. I'm not even paying attention to the argument. Yeah... I say keep it "fun and friendly"... but I do also call it shit... S ooooooooooooo....
Let's keep this petty name-calling and godawful bickering fun and friendly.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jan 8, 2018 21:25:39 GMT
Vegas
Why are you taking sides? That was a lot of nerve to post BXXXXXX. If you are going to call me out, then call out Brandon for questioning my sanity.
I will quote you.
I said nothing to him to trigger that response as I only told the Hx of St. Jude's Hospital.
Who could possibly question the sanity of someone who thinks she's her own sister?
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Jan 8, 2018 21:38:29 GMT
But that's not really donating, is it. That's just being generous with other people's money, along with the expectation that you will be shown equal generosity if you ever need it. Donating is being generous with your own money without demanding that everybody else be generous with theirs at the same time. No, i'm being generous with all our money. My money, other peoples money, our money (like the companies we own together via the state). You see, being generous with foreign aid doesn't just help the people in the third world, it helps us all in the long run. Your president doesn't want immigrants right? Yet he bailed out of a program helping poor people with birth controll. In 20 years, we are going to be so many people in this planet unless we do something about it, that there will not be enough food. Yes, we in the west will probably have enough, but do you think that a little wall will stop hungry people from pouring in? But don't worry about that program, Sweden picked up your tab...yet again. And in this country we tend not to be selfish, when I was a high income taker, I thought it was wonderfull that I via my taxes could contibute with a lot of money that would help others. And sure, donating via your taxes is not the same as donating to companies, the money we donate tend to end up with the people that really need it instead of in some buisnessmans pocket. Agree with you on all points, but... Coming from a former fundraiser for a non-profit, do your research. Is it well-run and worthy? How much of your donation goes to the actual people in need and how much goes back into fundraising, salaries, offices et al. I eventually quit my job - the non-profit was worthy but not well-run. I found another charity that was and supported it through donation and volunteer work.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 9, 2018 3:34:27 GMT
Because you seem like a sporting enough gentleman by some standards anyway I'm going to take some extra time to explain this sport to you. First let's address what so obviously marks you as an amateur. It is your need to file things into too few categories, to oversimplify things. You expect there to be "secular" or "religious" endeavors, one to the exclusion of the other. Reality is rarely so simple. In reality organizations will be more or less religious. Please notice what we are not doing here. We are not discussing how secular or religious the "Richard Dawkins Children's Hospital" is. I do not have to say anything like, "Just because it is named after an atheist doesn't mean has no religious support or predominantly religious support." I don't have to do that because there is no Richard Dawkins Children's Hospital at all. There are no hospitals with an atheist agenda of any formulation or expression. Neither are there any atheist schools in most advanced countries. However strongly you might feel that there are such organizations there remains the fact that there is no expression of atheism in them. Most public schools have religious studies even if they are cloaked in historical, political or cultural studies. I do understand that does not amount to any conclusion that there is or is not a god. You do not need to coach me. One public elementary school I attended used its bus system to send its students to nearby religious facilities of their parent's choice to receive two hours of religious training each week. That was the most "atheist" public school I every saw. What marks you as an amateur is your strong anxiety that a discussion is not proper because it fails to recognize the important "fact" that there is no god. There really are two different kinds of such amateurs. There are people who have an unusually strong anxiety that a discussion is not proper because it fails to recognize the "fact" that there is a god, for example that is particularly involved in current human endeavors. You call those amateurs "fundamentalists." We have been here many years now, but the most important lesson of the last two years is that atheists and fundamentalists are two sides of the same bad coin. You have the same problem, a crippling dependence on simplicity. The strong need to jump to conclusions leads to errors. You mistake trivial and inconclusive data for a scientific proof of anything. You fail to distinguish a glass from a crystal. The necessity of your assumptions causes you to ignore their unlikelihood. When a sound scientific proof is available you fail to see it. The science of intelligent design does not establish one way or the other the existence of any god that is active in current human endeavors. That is part of the proof. It is the failure to act, the failure to assemble life from inanimate matter today that constitutes the proof that inanimate agencies fail. Concession noted. Better luck next time. Conceding? Who is? To what? You haven't said anything yet. I said that people who believe in a god are more idealistic than atheists, which does appear to go without saying, but I did note examples of idealism. You seem to expect to "win" without making any case of your own. You obviously cannot make any case that atheists are idealistic if you tried. Here is an "ideal" of atheism -- materialism. No, that doesn't sound very idealistic, does it? Others here say atheists are idealistic because they believe children should be in charge of distributing the world's wealth. That is a different sort of idealism isn't it? Find obviously idealistic people. Count how many of them believe in a god. I win. By the way, the smarter atheists, none of them are here, argue that indeed atheism is not idealistic, rather it is realistic. That is somewhat less embarrassing for them than "um er ideals um er do too er um." I would argue with them, if they were here, that idealists can be every bit as realistic as atheists. There might be a few idealists who ought to pay more attention to the limits reality imposes on our dreams, but most of us are well established in reality. Another win for me.
|
|