Now that Ive cooled off....

[Odin]

And if you'd remember a few pages back I think.....I stated something along the lines of "we are still a far cry away from being a Theocracy." So I think you are getting the wrong impression when I say "we are close to being a Theocracy."

Best logic ever.

[KCAA]

Originally posted by Ryan H.


Prove it. Until then you're just spouting more bullshit. Your anecdotal experiences do not equal fact, and I hope you realize that one day.

First, let me say this:

Voice - very nice post (i didn't have time earlier to go into details as i have been away for a day or two.)

Now about the quote above. Please prove that it is ONLY SCIENTIFIC .

I'm not really sure what you were trying to say about Bush not being a scientist because he's a Christian. Are you implying that Christians are incapable of scientific thought? I really hope you're not. I personally know several devout Christians who are have incredible scientific minds. And when I use the term "scientist," I'm speaking of someone who actually applies scientific principles. Not junk-scientists. Our society is trained to believe anyone in a white lab coat who holds a test tube or looks through a microscope must be a "scientist," and everything they say is automatically considered fact. But that's a whole 'nother discussion.

His point was that Ryan claims (and Dimitri) that the abortion issue REGARDING THE PRESIDENT and the PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS, are based on science not religion. Voice makes an excellent point in that Bush is no scientist . Furthermore, Ill add, that most of the people in america aren't scientists. So drawing conclusions all people are basing it on SCIENCE isn't true. Granted its probably not ALL on religion either. However, religion HEAVILY influences the majority of people's lives. The rest of your paragraph there is jarbled off topic stuff i couldn't follow about some sterotype of a scientist. Unsure of where your going.

Odin - I agree. Thats some HEAVY logic.

[Dmitry M. (Lazer)]

Originally posted by KCAA


First, let me say this:

Voice - very nice post (i didn't have time earlier to go into details as i have been away for a day or two.)

Now about the quote above. Please prove that it is ONLY SCIENTIFIC .


His point was that Ryan claims (and Dimitri) that the abortion issue REGARDING THE PRESIDENT and the PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS, are based on science not religion. Voice makes an excellent point in that Bush is no scientist . Furthermore, Ill add, that most of the people in america aren't scientists. So drawing conclusions all people are basing it on SCIENCE isn't true. Granted its probably not ALL on religion either. However, religion HEAVILY influences the majority of people's lives. The rest of your paragraph there is jarbled off topic stuff i couldn't follow about some sterotype of a scientist. Unsure of where your going.

Odin - I agree. Thats some HEAVY logic.

Voice seemed to state the it was a fact that making abortion illigal was a religious thing. Secondly i never said anything about religion having influence, i stated to prove you and voice wrong. You and Voice both said when Ryan posted what science believes is life was wrong, and i stated my post to prove that you guys stating Ryan was wrong is actually a fictious comment.

See the problem with religion is that it's all a belief and if you want to believe it you can go right ahead. But if we look it towards a scientific way, when having an abortion you are scientifically speaking killing life.

Because there are also many other religions you probably don't know of that don't believe life starts until the baby is out of its mother's womb.

Don't forget there are many different religion's while almost all science in a certain area is 99% the same.

[Odin]

Voice makes an excellent point in that Bush is no scientist . Furthermore, Ill add, that most of the people in america aren't scientists. So drawing conclusions all people are basing it on SCIENCE isn't true.

That's the most dunderheaded logic I've ever heard in my life. Do you really mean to suggest that only balding men garbed in white lab coats caressing beakers are capable of considering science? You don't have to make a living through science to be capable of scientific thought, just like you don't have to be a priest to consider religion. Honestly, if I haven't communicated why that's ridiculous, I quit at life.

Jesus Christ, how is this happening? How have you two not given up after 120-something posts of humiliation? Ryan and others have flagellated you in this debate, yet the two of you scramble back to give him more ammunition each time they spike you into the ground? Please, stop this--it's masochistic. It's hard to watch.

[Magoosh!]

Reading all the stupid shit KCAA and Voice have posted...well I just cant bring myself to lock the thread

We should have a hall of fame for threads like this.

[Dmitry M. (Lazer)]

Originally posted by Magoosh!
Reading all the stupid shit KCAA and Voice have posted...well I just cant bring myself to lock the thread

We should have a hall of fame for threads like this.

[svosen]

I second that, Dmitry.

[Voice]

First.

I never ONCE said that the scientific view on when life starts was wrong. So don't tell me that I did.

Second.

I said that Religion, and Religious values was the basis of many peoples decision to be against abortion. I also said that George W. Bush is using these views of a large majority of our population to his advantage.

George W. Bush has not ONCE brought up science when talking about making abortion illegal. He has not once brought up the legal reasoning while talking on making same-sex marriage illegal.

Third.

How many times do I have to say this to make it clear? I am not talking about the debate of abortion or same-sex marriage on a national level. I am simply talking on the motivation behind George W. Bush's agenda. When it comes down to that, it IS BASED ON RELIGION, AND RELIGIOUS VALUES/MORALS.

Now, when taking that into account, it would be LOGICAL to say that the people who voted for George W. Bush that are of the christian faith, did so because they felt that he could somehow finally make abortion illegal again. ( Not saying that they had no other motivation for voting his way either, so don't try to tell me that there are "tons of people who voted for george w. bush because of............." )

Fourth.

My logic when it comes to what I've said about us being close to a Theocracy makes perfect sense to me. It's been taken way out of proportion, and made to seem like I said we are one ammendment away from being one.

I simply meant that the ammendments that have been proposed are in line with the basics of a Theocracy, I never said that the proposal of these ammendments made us a Theocracy, that was an assumption made by Dimitry. I also never said that if these ammendments passed, that we would in turn, become a Theocracy.

Voice: I could be mistaken, but I don't think Ryan ever said you weren't intelligent. He said you are "ignorant." Look up the definitions for both of those words; they are not synonymous.

Ryan did the same thing that you just did. He made a comment about himself being the one who has a real education. You make the comment that I should look up the words, like I don't know the definitions.

Hence, implying that I am stupid.

I never claimed that my opinions on these matters were absolute, I however did claim that they were my opinions.

I also never expect anyone to seperate themselves from their religious beliefs when voting. I do expect goverment officials to use caution and try their best to seperate religion and their official duty to our nation.

Our nation is so diverse, even the thought of passing laws and making ammendments to our constitution based on one groups moral values and religious beliefs is ridiculous.

I'll be back with some links, for some reason I can't open multiple windows for stuff......

[KCAA]

Originally posted by Voice
First.

I never ONCE said that the scientific view on when life starts was wrong. So don't tell me that I did.

Second.

I said that Religion, and Religious values was the basis of many peoples decision to be against abortion. I also said that George W. Bush is using these views of a large majority of our population to his advantage.

George W. Bush has not ONCE brought up science when talking about making abortion illegal. He has not once brought up the legal reasoning while talking on making same-sex marriage illegal.

Third.

How many times do I have to say this to make it clear? I am not talking about the debate of abortion or same-sex marriage on a national level. I am simply talking on the motivation behind George W. Bush's agenda. When it comes down to that, it IS BASED ON RELIGION, AND RELIGIOUS VALUES/MORALS.

Now, when taking that into account, it would be LOGICAL to say that the people who voted for George W. Bush that are of the christian faith, did so because they felt that he could somehow finally make abortion illegal again. ( Not saying that they had no other motivation for voting his way either, so don't try to tell me that there are "tons of people who voted for george w. bush because of............." )

Fourth.

My logic when it comes to what I've said about us being close to a Theocracy makes perfect sense to me. It's been taken way out of proportion, and made to seem like I said we are one ammendment away from being one.

I simply meant that the ammendments that have been proposed are in line with the basics of a Theocracy, I never said that the proposal of these ammendments made us a Theocracy, that was an assumption made by Dimitry. I also never said that if these ammendments passed, that we would in turn, become a Theocracy.





Ryan did the same thing that you just did. He made a comment about himself being the one who has a real education. You make the comment that I should look up the words, like I don't know the definitions.

Hence, implying that I am stupid.

I never claimed that my opinions on these matters were absolute, I however did claim that they were my opinions.

I also never expect anyone to seperate themselves from their religious beliefs when voting. I do expect goverment officials to use caution and try their best to seperate religion and their official duty to our nation.

Our nation is so diverse, even the thought of passing laws and making ammendments to our constitution based on one groups moral values and religious beliefs is ridiculous.

I'll be back with some links, for some reason I can't open multiple windows for stuff......

I have to say we agree on a lot of points. I will agree that we aren't a theocracy yet, but we are headed in that direction.

I never did get that slant on Kansas.

I like your closing statment alot.

It seems however, we are surrounded by people who just do NOT want to open their minds to ANY possibilities. It also seems that one's opinion has to be FACT, therefore not an opinion. But that rule only applies if it is someone other than themselves talking.

I think we agree with eachother voice..we're just out manned.

Dimitry-

but no please give an extensive analysis onto why you say that and not just go about it in that nature.

Does that apply to Magoosh!'s thread?

(or since he agrees does it not imply :P )

[Magoosh!]

My thread?