Is not necessarily the 2 party system. It is the inequity of the parties. The Republicans now have a powerful FANATICAL following, the core being Right Wing Christians. The Democrats, on the other hand, are too gunshy to stand up to them. Unfortunately CLinton seemed to hold ALL of the testosterone of the Democratic party.....now that he is gone......the Dems are going *****.

Is not necessarily the 2 party system. It is the inequity of the parties. The Republicans now have a powerful FANATICAL following, the core being Right Wing Christians. The Democrats, on the other hand, are too gunshy to stand up to them. Unfortunately CLinton seemed to hold ALL of the testosterone of the Democratic party.....now that he is gone......the Dems are going *****.


....I don't think the dems are scared I think they are sending the wrong message to middle America. They are pandering to the extreme edges of the Democratic party and putting far left liberals to the forefront. Most of American is nearer to the middle and when the dems insist on putting people like Pelosi, Kerry, and Howard Dean to the forefront it's gonna be ugly. When they get smart and start pushing moderate dems then they will get back in the running. Fortunately for people like me, who can't stand the democratic party, they don't appear smart enough or are too pig headed to change their ways. If anything they keep going further left with each defeat. WTF???

That's not really the government's problem, that's society's problem. The problem with our government is that its constantly over stepping its bounds. Making new rules about how courts should be ruled, the Patriot Act, etc, etc. Foreign wars are not overstepping its bounds if it's in the belief that it is for the protection of our country, which I think Bush believed at the time, and so did the rest of the administration, for the most part. The thing that pisses me off is that he says looking at what we have NOW, he'd STILL do the same thing. Why?! It's a waste of money, time, and lives.

In regards to our society, the problem with that is moral degridation. I can't really explain in full detail, but everyone wants to do what makes them "feel good," and is too worried about their personal feelings, and "self-expression." There are times and places for all those things, and all those things by themselves are not bad, but when they begin to replace common sense and rationality we have a problem on our hands; this is what is happening, not only in America, but the whole world. Everyone lives by their emotions rather than looking at things from a logical point of view.

What do I blame this on? Atheism, and evolution. Why? Because religion, any religion, gives a basis of morality, whereas atheism is a-moral. It's bases everything upon individuality, saying, "what's right for one isn't right for everyone else," which is why there's such a push for the homosexual equality. Instead of people condemning it for what it is, gross sexual immorality, they push it off as an "alternative lifestyle." It's the same with everything. And everyone has to be constantly reminded of two things, 1) what they say is their opinion, and only their opinion, as if they didn't know that already, and 2) that they have to be tolerant of and accept other people's lifestyles. Be tolerant of, as in, not killing people for being different, yes; however, when one is no longer allowed to speak out against these other people, this is where the problems begin.

This all goes back to the government, in many ways, overstepping their boundaries. What I honestly believe this all comes down to is power, and control. The government is taking away from our freedom of speech, our press is all politically motivated, even the independent press, and religion is scoffed at by all. This all caves the system in, and will eventually lead us into a one-world government, in which we have no freedoms.

(I know that's a little scatterbrained, but I was trying to get as much out in the five minutes I spent typing that as I could)

....I don't think the dems are scared I think they are sending the wrong message to middle America. They are pandering to the extreme edges of the Democratic party and putting far left liberals to the forefront. Most of American is nearer to the middle and when the dems insist on putting people like Pelosi, Kerry, and Howard Dean to the forefront it's gonna be ugly. When they get smart and start pushing moderate dems then they will get back in the running. Fortunately for people like me, who can't stand the democratic party, they don't appear smart enough or are too pig headed to change their ways. If anything they keep going further left with each defeat. WTF???
Left wing in America is middle of the road in most places. I am a middle of the road Canadian but by American standards I am a pinko commie. America only needs to fix one problem in it goverment IMO. They need to understand how out of step they are with the rest of the world.

They claim to be protecting the freedoms of everyone on the planet but when they don't give two ****s about what anyone else on the planet thinks it kind of makes them look like they are full of ****.

There are so many great things about America. Its a shame you have such awful leaders, in both parties.

Just because ppl believe in evolution doesnt mean theyre atheists. And just because people dont read the bible doesnt mean they dont have morals.

And press being politically motivated: just read different sides and compare. Its ussually pretty obvious to see which paper is slanted which way and when you know that just take everything they say into perspective.

Just because ppl believe in evolution doesnt mean theyre atheists. And just because people dont read the bible doesnt mean they dont have morals.

And press being politically motivated: just read different sides and compare. Its ussually pretty obvious to see which paper is slanted which way and when you know that just take everything they say into perspective.

You didn't actually read my post, did you?

I hope nobody starts a trouble here or this thread would be candidate for closure. Remember the war head thread. ;)

Eh I admit I skimmed it, the only part i really remeber is: "What do I blame this on? Atheism, and evolution. Why? Because religion, any religion, gives a basis of morality, whereas atheism is a-moral." and "This all goes back to the government, in many ways, overstepping their boundaries. What I honestly believe this all comes down to is power, and control. The government is taking away from our freedom of speech, our press is all politically motivated, even the independent press, and religion is scoffed at by all."

Eh I admit I skimmed it, the only part i really remeber is: "What do I blame this on? Atheism, and evolution. Why? Because religion, any religion, gives a basis of morality, whereas atheism is a-moral." and "This all goes back to the government, in many ways, overstepping their boundaries. What I honestly believe this all comes down to is power, and control. The government is taking away from our freedom of speech, our press is all politically motivated, even the independent press, and religion is scoffed at by all."

Well, my point is that atheism is directly against morality. You're right that just because someone believes in evolution doesn't make them an atheist, though. All religion gives a sense of morality, right and wrong, that was my point.

Well would you say that an agnostic could have morals?

Democrats just started losing power, all government is the same, Dem's been in control longer than Rep's, their more powerful, both sides have brain washed fanatics, be independent.

The problem with our government is deeply rooted in society.

1.) lack of laws regarding treason. People like Ward Churchill should be executed for his statements.

2.) Bipartisanship dictates electoral vote, seperation of parties_leading to a seperation of us as a nation.

3.) Too many Right Wing Bible thumpers

4.) Too many ****** liberal ****faces.

Well, my point is that atheism is directly against morality. You're right that just because someone believes in evolution doesn't make them an atheist, though. All religion gives a sense of morality, right and wrong, that was my point.

Yes, you're right, religion has, throughout history, provided the moral fibre that his kept this world safe and peaceful for all citizens. Of course there are a few atheists now and then who stir up trouble, inciting war and terror, but the religious folks have always been around to promote peace and kindness. Not one war in history has ever been started by a religious person.

:confused: :confused:

Seriously, are some of you people just play-acting here? I can't believe anyone would really say some of these things. Boxing_fan is a more believable character than some of you guys.

Yes, you're right, religion has, throughout history, provided the moral fibre that his kept this world safe and peaceful for all citizens. Of course there are a few atheists now and then who stir up trouble, inciting war and terror, but the religious folks have always been around to promote peace and kindness. Not one war in history has ever been started by a religious person.

:confused: :confused:

Seriously, are some of you people just play-acting here? I can't believe anyone would really say some of these things. Boxing_fan is a more believable character than some of you guys.

You do realize where all that we have for defining good and bad came from, right? Just because a few "religious" people start wars, doesn't make religion bad. All morality is derived from religion. Peace and kindness do not equal morality. I think you should learn what morality is before you go rambling **** out of your mouth. It's not "promoting peace and kindness" because both are not always correct. Should Hilter have been treated with peace and kindness? In fact, that one person, Adolf Hilter proves my point. The man was an atheist, and he started the worst war this world has ever seen. Through his ideals he killed millions of people. Stalin? Hitler? Saddam? All the same.

You do realize where all that we have for defining good and bad came from, right? Just because a few "religious" people start wars, doesn't make religion bad. All morality is derived from religion. Peace and kindness do not equal morality. I think you should learn what morality is before you go rambling **** out of your mouth. It's not "promoting peace and kindness" because both are not always correct. Should Hilter have been treated with peace and kindness? In fact, that one person, Adolf Hilter proves my point. The man was an atheist, and he started the worst war this world has ever seen. Through his ideals he killed millions of people. Stalin? Hitler? Saddam? All the same.

I'm not going to waste all day on this, but I got one thing to tell you. The worst atrocities the world has ever known were committed during the Crusades. You wanna know how bad they were? When the Crusaders took over the city of Jerusalem, they killed EVERYBODY in town. I mean they wiped out the whole city. Man, woman, child, gone. They cleaned the place out. And this was just one of the many places where they committed their crimes.

In case you don't know, the Crusades was a war fought in the name of Christianity. Everyone involved pledged themselves to the Cross of Christ. They thought that God was on their side. Sound like atheists to you, guy?

I'm not going to waste all day on this, but I got one thing to tell you. The worst atrocities the world has ever known were committed during the Crusades. You wanna know how bad they were? When the Crusaders took over the city of Jerusalem, they killed EVERYBODY in town. I mean they wiped out the whole city. Man, woman, child, gone. They cleaned the place out. And this was just one of the many places where they committed their crimes.

In case you don't know, the Crusades was the world's first religious war. Everyone involved pledged themselves to the Cross of Christ. They thought that God was on their side. Sound like atheists to you, guy?

Yep. I don't consider Catholics, the people who started the wars, to be actual religious people. They have distorted the words of the Bible worse than any other religion in the world. (EDIT: I say this being a Christian myself, and knowing many Catholic people, whom I've discussed this with. EDIT again to clarify: this is not stated properly. What I mean is that they're following the Bible improperly)

Either way, it's undeniable that morality has come from religion. Without a basis of religion, there can be no morality, because man is a terrible thing. We're evil. Why do you think we kill each other, rape each other, etc, etc, constantly? Eventually we begin to worship ourselves, and our nature, and we become worse and worse. In order for society to properly function religion is an absolute necessary; that is why we are on a downward spiral right now, there is hardly any religion any more.

Yep. I don't consider Catholics, the people who started the wars, to be actual religious people. They have distorted the words of the Bible worse than any other religion in the world. (EDIT: I say this being a Christian myself, and knowing many Catholic people, whom I've discussed this with)

Either way, it's undeniable that morality has come from religion. Without a basis of religion, there can be no morality, because man is a terrible thing. We're evil. Why do you think we kill each other, rape each other, etc, etc, constantly? Eventually we begin to worship ourselves, and our nature, and we become worse and worse. In order for society to properly function religion is an absolute necessary; that is why we are on a downward spiral right now, there is hardly any religion any more.

Okay, so everyone who doesn't fit your argument is not "actually" religious. That makes a whole lot of sense :confused: .

Okay, so everyone who doesn't fit your argument is not "actually" religious. That makes a whole lot of sense :confused: .

No, that's not it. It's that the Catholics are liars, and distorters of what they claim to follow, the Bible. Should they actually follow the Bible then they'd be true people of God, but they aren't. Yes, it's a religion, and yes they started the Crusades. What I'm saying is this: Upon further analysis of the Catholics, you will find that they don't really follow the God they say they are following. I can't say they are atheists, or whatever, so I guess I worded that wrong, but they are certainly not Christian.

In any case, you're completely avoiding my argument, which is that morality cannot exist without religion.

Well, my point is that atheism is directly against morality. You're right that just because someone believes in evolution doesn't make them an atheist, though. All religion gives a sense of morality, right and wrong, that was my point.

You right. All religion does give a sense of morality. Especially Islam where they keep their women in bee keeper suits, dont let them vote and stone people to death on a regular basis. Some real good lessons in some of these books...

I dont know about atheism being against morals. thats a pretty harsh statement. You may have some technical definition on athiests that supports what your saying, but I dont believe in god and I have morals. Also, just because the bible says something is wrong, doesnt make it actually wrong. Just like if the goverment makes something illegal, it makes it illegal, but not necessarily morally wrong. I think what is morally wrong is a matter of opinion in lots of cases. I think that me growing weed and smoking it is no worse than what Anaheusur Bush does on a dailiy basis. I actually think what they do is worse, but I would be thrown in jail while they make money in this country hand over fist, legally.
:cool:

You right. All religion does give a sense of morality. Especially Islam where they keep their women in bee keeper suits, dont let them vote and stone people to death on a regular basis. Some real good lessons in some of these books...


No, see explosivo, those people aren't really religious. Neither is the Pope, or, for that matter, Buddha and Vishnu. The only religious people are those that fits BadMagick's strict criteria of people who act "morally". If you read his previous posts, you'll see that he doesn't include homosexuals in this list. A gay person could be a good, charitable person who doesn't harm a fly and loves his or her partner, but they are still immoral if you listen to BadMagick.

No, see explosivo, those people aren't really religious. Neither is the Pope, or, for that matter, Buddha and Vishnu. The only religious people are those that fits BadMagick's strict criteria of people who act "morally". If you read his previous posts, you'll see that he doesn't include homosexuals in this list. A gay person could be a good, charitable person who doesn't harm a fly and loves his or her partner, but they are still immoral if you listen to BadMagick.

Wow, you're an idiot. Way to distort what someone says. Someone can be immoral in one practice, yet moral in another practice. I said that the way in which I stated the answer to the first question was wrong, and that I was wrong, if you read what I wrote.

The fact is that morality is derived from religion. Without something to tell you what is right and wrong, then anything can be right, and anything can be wrong. According to the atheistic ideology, a murderer can be morally correct, because he decides what his own morals are. He thinks what he is doing is right, but it's not.

The fact is that morality is derived from religion. Without something to tell you what is right and wrong, then anything can be right, and anything can be wrong. According to the atheistic ideology, a murderer can be morally correct, because he decides what his own morals are. He thinks what he is doing is right, but it's not.

Okay...why do you think atheists get to define their own morals? Don't we live in societies? And can't these societies define their own moral codes based on what's good for the society as a whole? Do they need hocus-pocus stories of gods and demons to guide them to define these codes? Can't I just say, "Well, I don't want Steve down the street murdering my family cause I love them"? Why does God have to enter this story? Why can't we define morals based on the mutual benefit of everyone in a society? And, if we did so, wouldn't these laws involve protecting each other from the evils of others? Wouldn't these laws try to curb immoral behaviour?

The fact is that morality is derived from religion. Without something to tell you what is right and wrong, then anything can be right, and anything can be wrong. According to the atheistic ideology, a murderer can be morally correct, because he decides what his own morals are. He thinks what he is doing is right, but it's not.

I dont really disagree with that. If you use murder as an example, I do think that there are some cases in which murder is justified. If someone rapes and kills a little kid, I think they should be killed, no matter who does the killing. I dont know how you feel about the death penalty, but do you think its only right to kill someone if its the government doing the killing? When it comes to things like child molesting and rape there is no debate that these things are wrong IMO. Killing someone is a different story.

If someone did something heinous to my family and I killed them personally, I would go to jail but i wouldnt feel what I did was wrong.

I dont really disagree with that. If you use murder as an example, I do think that there are some cases in which murder is justified. If someone rapes and kills a little kid, I think they should be killed, no matter who does the killing. I dont know how you feel about the death penalty, but do you think its only right to kill someone if its the government doing the killing? When it comes to things like child molesting and rape there is no debate that these things are wrong IMO. Killing someone is a different story.

If someone did something heinous to my family and I killed them personally, I would go to jail but i wouldnt feel what I did was wrong.

There is definitely a cause behind killing someone who has harmed another. It's perfectly correct. Clearly, when speaking of a muderer, I am not talking about a case such as that. I'm talking about someone like... say.. John Wayne Gasey.

Okay...why do you think atheists get to define their own morals? Don't we live in societies? And can't these societies define their own moral codes based on what's good for the society as a whole? Do they need hocus-pocus stories of gods and demons to guide them to define these codes? Can't I just say, "Well, I don't want Steve down the street murdering my family cause I love them"? Why does God have to enter this story? Why can't we define morals based on the mutual benefit of everyone in a society? And, if we did so, wouldn't these laws involve protecting each other from the evils of others? Wouldn't these laws try to curb immoral behaviour?

What gives the basis of what is right and wrong, if looked at from a humanistic point of view?

The Problem with the US Gov't Right now....

http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/sharemed/targets/images/pho/00069/00069f0d.jpg