McCain picks Woman as VP, Hell freezes over.

[Fluffz]

1. Why are humans inside of this universe 'blind'? What does that mean
2. From the great authority of 'define: universe' -> "everything that exists anywhere". So 'inside of this universe' as opposed to what, outside this universe?
Humans ability to understand truth is limited by relative perception. The concept of truth itself is defined outside perception. Morale defined outside human perception woud not be challengeable by different human perception.
3. What does 'changing the truth' mean?
5. How does (the theory of) evolution affect truth?
6. How does culture affect truth?
Different things are right for different people. If people created morale it is wrong for different people.
4. Are you implying that in some past there was absolute truthness? What does that mean?
Im not sure if i understand the question. I do think existance has a quest or goal. That creation had a reason, it makes no sense to relativate everything. We shouldnt be arguing if this wasnt the case, without absolute truth you couldn't proove me wrong.

7. 'escape the prison of history'. What does that mean?

nonconformity, murder, rape, rejection of the relative perception culture taught us. It is this actions we need morale for, not normality. Your attempt is from no use when we judge them.

The kind of moral standard that we have is entirely dependent on our culture and time.

This "standard" only covers people that agree with it. As soon as you meet another culture - or person - you either have another "standard" or the person is not different. This is not a standard of morale but a standard of persons.

How is faith different? Like i said, even the most scientific anarchist has to have faith in the basics of this world, in existance, development, order or truth itself. His interaction is the proof. Together conform in faith we create a frame that makes no sense to question anymore, there would be nothing left to understand an answer. God - u can call it faith in order or truth if that word disturbs you - is the reason why it makes sense to have morale. You can not question such a standard without questioning the concept of morale; without losing the ability to question.

Morals are constructed by humans as a way for human society to function better.

And humans want a society to function better because of what? Evolution? Evolution occurs because of... randomness? If this is the case i have to ask everyone to follow the premise of creation, reject any form of culture evolution falsely created and live a life in chaos. This argumentation makes a devine hero out of every murder.

When you reduce religion to Mass, buildings or wars you forget that when we talk about god it is not only some huge greek leaving olymp to hit virgins every now and than but also our begin.

[Zerzera]

Humans ability to understand truth is limited by relative perception. The concept of truth itself is defined outside perception. Morale defined outside human perception woud not be challengeable by different human perception.

Of course it would. The bible is here, but men are not complying. Even if your God existed I would defy some of His rules. So what if I end up in hell by following my own mind, I wouldn't comply to a totalitarian that claims I have a free will and then threatens me that I have to follow his values or be punished, what sick cruel joke is that? Even if he was the one who created me, I owe him nothing.
But your God isn't even speaking up, so there is no moral defined for us to follow. The bible are the words of God written down by men, the content has been butchered through the ages by spiritual leaders, why would I follow these words over my own mind?

The commandments say we should not strike a man, yet he rallies the Jews to go on war and strike down their foes. There is a breach in your unchangeable truthful morals already.

If there was a God and a heaven, would that give more sense to my life? No it wouldn't. Oh so I can become a happy spirit in eternity, what use is that exactly?

[Epinephrine]

How is faith different? Like i said, even the most scientific anarchist has to have faith in the basics of this world, in existance, development, order or truth itself. His interaction is the proof. Together conform in faith we create a frame that makes no sense to question anymore, there would be nothing left to understand an answer. God - u can call it faith in order or truth if that word disturbs you - is the reason why it makes sense to have morale. You can not question such a standard without questioning the concept of morale; without losing the ability to question.

You don't seem to understand Fluffz... no one here is claiming that religion can't be used as a basis for morality. We're just saying that morality isn't ONLY based on religion as you seem to think. Furthermore, I personally believe that religion isn't the best way to base your morality on, for the precise reasons that since every culture and religion is different, and religion deals with 'absolute truths', then when people from different cultures and different religions live together and have different senses of morality, you end up with big problems as people try to force their beliefs onto others.

And humans want a society to function better because of what? Evolution? Evolution occurs because of... randomness? If this is the case i have to ask everyone to follow the premise of creation, reject any form of culture evolution falsely created and live a life in chaos. This argumentation makes a devine hero out of every murder.

Humans want society to function better because amazingly enough, humans are living, breathing and THINKING beings. We can clearly see that a society where it's not acceptable to go around murdering whomever we want, and stealing from whomever we want is a bad place to live in. I think that's pretty much common sense, and honestly does not need any belief in god to see.

[Troll King]

I disagree with the idea that free will and the threat of eternal damnation is a contradiction or, as Zerzera put it, a "sick joke". It'd be a joke if the potential of winding up in hell was a bit of fine print or something receiving slim mention. No, the threat of punishment is made very clear by the believing, and people can still choose to defy rules in spite of them. It's not a restriction on free will if one chooses to commit a crime while being aware of the consequences. If people tell you you're going to hell if you kill someone and you do it anyway, that's still your choice. Or for a more mundane analogy, it'd be like deciding whether to buy a used car. If someone tells you the car has serious mechanical flaws and you choose to buy it anyway and accept the consequences, then how is that anything but free will at work?

[Zerzera]

I disagree with the idea that free will and the threat of eternal damnation is a contradiction or, as Zerzera put it, a "sick joke". It'd be a joke if the potential of winding up in hell was a bit of fine print or something receiving slim mention. No, the threat of punishment is made very clear by the believing, and people can still choose to defy rules in spite of them. It's not a restriction on free will if one chooses to commit a crime while being aware of the consequences. If people tell you you're going to hell if you kill someone and you do it anyway, that's still your choice. Or for a more mundane analogy, it'd be like deciding whether to buy a used car. If someone tells you the car has serious mechanical flaws and you choose to buy it anyway and accept the consequences, then how is that anything but free will at work?

The joke I called is in the fact that the person who owns the car could make it be without serious mechanical flaws just like that. What you explained though, is in line with my argument that God's moral is then nothing different than our own.

[Squeezer]

Am I the only person that grows more terrified with every new detail I hear about Sarah Palin and her life?

[DoTheFandango]

Am I the only person that grows more terrified with every new detail I hear about Sarah Palin and her life?

seriously dude shit is fucked up and she is a fucking bitch.
she is a fucking BITCH.

also, McCain claimed that she has been to iraq, but then everyone who is anyone was like "uh no."

[Squeezer]

seriously dude shit is fucked up and she is a fucking bitch.
she is a fucking BITCH.

also, McCain claimed that she has been to iraq, but then everyone who is anyone was like "uh no."

she also said she's never requested an earmark during her tenure as governor. The media is fact checking now and it turns out she's taken in over $500 mil.

I know the job of a governor is to get as much money as possible into your state, but she is boldfaced lying in every speech she gives (and not spinning or over-exaggerating, but outright lying).

And don't even get me started with her foreign policy experience that comes from being "close" to Russia...You know, that country she said she'd go to war with last week.

[Cops]

The only reason Fox News said she has communication with Russia is because they're relatively close, but realistically they have just about the same amount of communication with Russia as British Columbia does, and that's not saying a lot.

She has zero foreign policy experience, and anyone that is afraid of her being in 'second command' is rightfully justified to feel that way, McCain is old what happens if he dies? Palin in charge of America? I hope to hell not.

[Epinephrine]

It's kind of funny, this whole business of being 'close to russia'. Russia is a HUGE place, and the parts of Alaska which can actually see Russia, basically no one but the Inuit live in. It's all just frozen tundra for thousands of miles, and it's funny that anyone would take it seriously.

[Money]

the bitch lied about everything anyways, dont we already have big liars in office? lol

[Cops]

It's kind of funny, this whole business of being 'close to russia'. Russia is a HUGE place, and the parts of Alaska which can actually see Russia, basically no one but the Inuit live in. It's all just frozen tundra for thousands of miles, and it's funny that anyone would take it seriously.

People don't look at fucking maps, I have the same argument with people who think we live in Northern Ontario. For the most part we're bordered up pretty close to America, just like Russia's cities are all along their borders.

FOX News made an uneducated assumption, one of many.

[Pearl Jam]

Head...hurting...too...many...college-aged idealists.

Here's the thing I don't get - why would the Obama campaign NOT have picked Hilary? Seriously? That's a fucking slam dunk ticket! It just seems so ridiculous to me that they wouldn't of tried to go that route. McCain then responded with a risky/extreme choice - Palin, who has all but obscured Biden in terms of publicity. Some of you are going to now cry "well that publicity is her saying she hates gays and wants to blow up Russia!". Maybe, yeah. But what you can't deny is that she fits the "Maverick" profile perfectly, like it or loathe it. Yes, people will get behind that, no matter how ridiculous some of her views/comments are. Extremist attract a following no matter how you spin it (see: Ron Paul, various religious leaders).

But don't take my word for it...read what Biden himself said:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...091302456.html

[Epinephrine]

Why didn't Obama pick Clinton? Very simple, Obama wants to be the one in charge. If he picked Clinton, his power if he were elected would have been greatly diminished, and Clinton would probably be an even more powerful vice-president than Cheney would.

[Kolar]

McCain made it his mission in Washington (after getting his ass kicked by Bush) to fight against the hard liners within the GOP and I can understand him having to get more buddy buddy with them lately but to pick someone as VP who has defined their political career thus far by extreme secrecy of her office and issues of personal bias and involvement, it kinda doesn't fit into his campaign theme. Not so much about experienced but someone who can be a reformer, someone who's willing to work beyond the party lines, beyond their ego to solve problems. Her record is short but is based on what people dislike about Washington politics today, divisive moral issues consuming all other political discourse, partisanship and elitist group think. I see Biden being picked not for political reasons, he was one a short list and had the experience in terms of foreign policy, he wasn't going to help Obama win the election. Palin was picked for purely political reasons to capture Clinton supporters and she's getting a lot of attention right now because everyone is asking who the fuck is Sarah Palin. That can go either way but it seems that in politics the less people ask or investigate the better.

I don't think Clinton wanted the VP nomination and the Democrats seem to believe it wouldn't have helped solidify the party any more then her endorsement of Obama. It also leaves open the possibility of running in 2012 if Obama doesn't win which is always a possibility, even with the GOPs long list of failures in 8 years, or in 2016.