• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Kentucky ark proves god hates America...

Fail to see any insults in your list.
For example, "You are a stuck up asswipe" is a personal insult. If you take it upon yourself to be insulted anything I wrote, then that is on you. I am not responsible for your emotions.

I have been known to apologize when proven wrong in an argument. I have done so in this forum. You have not proven me wrong. And if you don't like being called out on bull****, then don't spew bull****.

I did not think you would see any insults in what you said. However, anywhere else, that kind of language to another person is guaranteed to shut down a conversation, and be seen as rude, insulting, and over-the-top condescending & boorish.

You are one of the perfect ones that never SEE YOURSELF as saying or doing anything wrong. You do, but just cannot see it because of your perfect enlightened state you feel you are in. The internet is full of those like you.

Try this as an experiment. Go to a bar, start a conversation with someone, then get in their face and say " WAH, WAH, WAH!, cry me a river! ", then tell them they would not know _____ if it bit them in the ass. That is only two (2) of the things you started you conversation off with and said to me.

I will guarantee you at a very minimum, the conversation will be over. Chances are also very good, much more will follow. Either way, there is no longer a polite and respectful conversation underway.

I can tell IMMEDIATELY, you do not have much interaction with very many people in the real world.

You have ZERO conversational skills.

Especially when you do not see one thing wrong with talking to a grown man that way.

We are done. You will get no more replies from me, but I am sure you will continue to post long after this to justify what you to, to " the crowd ".

That unseen "crowd " the perfect ones are always looking over their shoulder to for support for their actions.

I won't play anymore. It is meatloaf night with real mashed potatoes and brown gravy.
 
Last edited:
Let me first thank you for your respectful and polite post to me. I was expecting something else, and am glad it did not happen. Thank you. That previous guy was very over-the-top in his distain for Christianity.

That said, I will debate your premise in this way. Please understand I am talking generically, not personally.

********************************************************************************************

and just who is to determine what is "dumb" and what is " good ".

That is the same arrogance the people of many countries used against others during various eras of human history. Setting us all back and deleting historical and intellectual facts that will never be recovered.

All lost to mankind because some felt the other groups beliefs were "dumb", and decided to eradicate them.

YOU = dumb....ME = good. This arrogant formula you endorse has caused tons of knowledge to be lost forever.
***********************************************************************************************************
Along the Great Wall of China there are various entry points that were forts and commerce points. One Chinese engineer was so brilliant he could calculate the EXACT number of bricks it would take to build one center fort. Some generals made a bet that he would be wrong, so he said he would do it, but have an excess of just one brick.

When the fort was built, and the generals looked on with great scrutiny, he was 100% accurate.

They then placed that ONE BRICK on a window ledge where it remains there to this very day.

NOW....there is absolutely no one who can accomplish this feat today. He calculation methods were destroyed by the Japanese when they burned the place they were kept.

The Arrogant & Ignorance banner marches on....YOU = dumb, ME = good.

Thanks for also being civil.

What you describe here, sir, is bigotry. That is defined as thinking another idea or group of people is inferior simply because it isn't like yours. That's not what I advocate. That is exactly what the religious do regularly, though.

What I desire is for critical thinking to apply as much to spirituality as it does to medicine or sports. Human spirituality is an important aspect of one's identity that should be an honest, individual search for truth. But, I fail to see how allowing it to exist in deliberate ignorance of the natural world is, in any way, respectful of truth. Those religions, like Mormonism or my grandmother's brand of Christianity, are profoundly disrespectful to it, and that's where we diverge.

Freedom of conscience should not include the right to lie. That perverts the very essence of what spirituality purports to represent. Darwin, amongst his scientific contributions, exposed and continues to expose a lot of religious people for being hypocrites. They use the word "truth" in cynical denial rather than in discovery. They aren't interested in a god that is natural and not magical. They are phonies.
 
Have you ever asked yourself how religion would function in a libertarian society? How would harm be assessed in an environment of unlimited freedom of creative observation? You think I stole your car? No, my god decided that walking is good for you.

How do you think a libertarian system would deal with conflicts of faith? I'm curious if anyone who calls themselves libertarian has an idea about it.

I don't know what a libertarian society is. I can't imagine why anyone would want unlimited freedom. I don't know what a libertarian system is but conflicts of faith appear to be common in any system. I'm curious that you have a strange and rigid concept of what libertarianism means.
 
I don't know what a libertarian society is. I can't imagine why anyone would want unlimited freedom. I don't know what a libertarian system is but conflicts of faith appear to be common in any system. I'm curious that you have a strange and rigid concept of what libertarianism means.

I could have sworn it was you who said that the ark museum was not an appropriate role for government. You didn't specify why. That's why I asked the question about libertarianism relative to religious regulations. I realize your statement was not whether ark museums were an appropriate role for religion.

If libertarianism, in your opinion, is not a "rigid" ideology, then why use the word "libertarian" at all. If it is so loosey-goosey a term, what value does it have to describe anyone's opinion?

Libertarians, as you have done, speak a lot about the role of government. I feel they can get away with criticizing government without having to offer a better idea than government. As you said, there's no such thing as a libertarian society because, when government is shrunk enough, society ceases to have any cohesive effort to establish itself. Libertarianism, where it exists, manifests as an utter lack of social control. In other words, it is the war between factions (right or wrong) who actually have a vision for society. It's not society.
 
I could have sworn it was you who said that the ark museum was not an appropriate role for government.

I said paying for it or anything else like it is not an appropriate role for government.

You didn't specify why. That's why I asked the question about libertarianism relative to religious regulations. I realize your statement was not whether ark museums were an appropriate role for religion.

Government money should never be used for a business unless it is buying something from the business. Government doesn't belong in the entertainment business. That is my opinion.

If libertarianism, in your opinion, is not a "rigid" ideology, then why use the word "libertarian" at all. If it is so loosey-goosey a term, what value does it have to describe anyone's opinion?

Because the basic tenets of the major parties do not appeal to me while those of the libertarian party do. There is no rigid ideology except in places like North Korea. What you said about libertarianism you could also say about conservatism and liberalism.

Libertarians, as you have done, speak a lot about the role of government. I feel they can get away with criticizing government without having to offer a better idea than government.

I've never met a libertarian that that believes in anarchy. Libertarians, at least those like me, simply want a smaller, less intrusive, less expensive government. No alternative involved. Just a matter of degree. I believe republicans believe the same thing. They just don't practice it.

As you said, there's no such thing as a libertarian society because, when government is shrunk enough, society ceases to have any cohesive effort to establish itself. Libertarianism, where it exists, manifests as an utter lack of social control. In other words, it is the war between factions (right or wrong) who actually have a vision for society. It's not society.

That's a curious comment. We had a society in 1779. In 1859 we had a debt free government and society still thrived. I realize society has changed but government, in my view, has grown to be an ugly monstrosity. It is the natural course of those who seek and exercise political power. It is a problem. We need a reset.
 
Back
Top Bottom