to be a good..

[mookie1995]

To be a good Republican one needs to believe:


1. Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.

2. Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's Daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him, and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.

3. Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is Communist, but trade with China and Viet Nam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

4. The United States should get out of the United Nations, while our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.

5. A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multinational drug corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.

6. The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches, while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.

7. If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.

8. A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our longtime allies, then demand their cooperation and money.

9. Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy, but providing health care to all Americans is socialism. HMO's and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.

10. Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.

11. A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense, but a president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.

12. Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.

13. The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's driving record is none of our business.

14. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.

15. Supporting "Executive Privilege" for every Republican ever born, who will be born or who might be born (in perpetuity.)

16. What Bill Clinton did in the 1960's is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the 1980's is irrelevant.

17. Support hunters who shoot their friends and blame them for wearing orange vests similar to those worn by quail.





If you don't send this to at least five other people, we're likely to be stuck with more Republicans in 2012.

Friends don't let friends vote Republican. "

 

[Old Pio]

Re: to be a good..

To be a good Republican one needs to believe:


1. Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.

2. Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's Daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him, and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.

3. Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is Communist, but trade with China and Viet Nam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

4. The United States should get out of the United Nations, while our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.

5. A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multinational drug corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.

6. The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches, while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.

7. If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.

8. A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our longtime allies, then demand their cooperation and money.

9. Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy, but providing health care to all Americans is socialism. HMO's and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.

10. Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.

11. A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense, but a president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.

12. Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.

13. The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's driving record is none of our business.

14. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.

15. Supporting "Executive Privilege" for every Republican ever born, who will be born or who might be born (in perpetuity.)

16. What Bill Clinton did in the 1960's is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the 1980's is irrelevant.

17. Support hunters who shoot their friends and blame them for wearing orange vests similar to those worn by quail.





If you don't send this to at least five other people, we're likely to be stuck with more Republicans in 2012.

Friends don't let friends vote Republican. "

What we really need is more "hopium."

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: to be a good..

The way mookie keeps churning these out, I think regular old fashioned opium is more appropriate.

Seriously, is mookie doing some strange Dadaist performance art or something?

 

[gounhwildcats]

Re: to be a good..

To be a good Republican one needs to believe:


1. Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.

10. but creationism should be taught in schools.

The rest of it I don't particularly care about, as it's all political nonsense that has nothing to do with anything meaningful. However I would like to say that the fact that so much of what passes itself off as the Christian church has left the general public with this opinion saddens me to no end. Jesus Christ loved homosexuals so much that He died on a cross so that they could have eternal life. As Pastor John MacArthur once said when speaking about the dangers of moralism, "I never want the homosexuals around me to think that I hate them". It's fine to hate the sin of homosexuality, because God does, but hating homosexuals has nothing to do with Christianity. They are the mission field, not the enemy. Hating an activity though is not the same as hating the participant. I don't particularly like basketball, but I don't hate tall black men. Jesus Christ didn't come to bring a political party, He came to usher in the Kingdom of Heaven. This should always and only be the mission of the church. Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. It is not our job to try and create a more moral America, because we can't, it isn't our mandate, it will fail miserably, and it will accomplish nothing. The Pharisees were the most moral people in Jesus day, and again in the words of Pastor MacArthur "it was the highly moral, highly religious Jews fastidious about righteous standards who joined with the immoral, idolatrous Romans, flaunting their sins, and together they killed Christ...but in His dying He provided salvation that they both desperately needed".

As for your second point, this characterization that Evolution vs Creationism is science vs religion is hogwash. It's religion vs. religion. The more science comes to understand the universe and the laws that govern it the more the evidence points back to the necessity of a Creator. Matter and energy simply cannot create themselves. So if you have an empty universe, devoid of any matter or energy, and suddenly you have a universe full of matter and energy it is completely irrational to suggest that it somehow created itself. In order for that to happen it would have had to exist before it existed in order to create itself. That simply cannot occur, so in the absence of a totally naturalistic explanation, only a supernatural explanation will suffice. Second, life exists on this planet, there was a time when it didn't. Science has one observation and one observation only of how life is brought forth and that is from other life. There are no exceptions to that rule. So if you have a planet devoid of life, and you now have a planet teeming with life and if life cannot emerge from non-life than only a supernatural explanation of how that life got here will suffice. Third, no organism can produce an organism that is more complex than itself. Again, this is the only observation from science, and there are no exceptions to this rule. No-one anywhere at anytime has ever observed any living creature produce anything other than it's own kind. Birds produce birds, dogs produce dogs, monkeys produce monkeys and humans produce humans. They can produce many different variations within that species, but never another completely new species.There are no exceptions or variations from that rule. And since all those creatures exist and since only those creatures can produce those creatures then they must always have existed. DNA mutations only and ever cause corruption, destruction, or variation of existing information they never produce new or better information. This totally cancels out the possibility of evolution occurring. Also, DNA doesn't just contain information it is information. And we again have only one observation of where information comes from and that is from intelligence, there are no exceptions to that rule. Completely natural forces never produce information, and certainly not information that is usable. And last, natural selection is a myth. It doesn't happen. It never has, because it can't. Nature has no ability to select or cause anything to occur inside the cellular functions of a living organism. What happens within DNA happens because it is programmed to, not because nature caused it to happen.

"Nobody times nothing equals everything is totally irrational, but it works in a totally immoral culture, because if there's no Creator then there's no Judge." - John MacArthur

 

[Foxton]

Re: to be a good..

I do hope this post is just trolling.

The rest of it I don't particularly care about, as it's all political nonsense that has nothing to do with anything meaningful. However I would like to say that the fact that so much of what passes itself off as the Christian church has left the general public with this opinion saddens me to no end. Jesus Christ loved homosexuals so much that He died on a cross so that they could have eternal life. As Pastor John MacArthur once said when speaking about the dangers of moralism, "I never want the homosexuals around me to think that I hate them". It's fine to hate the sin of homosexuality, because God does, but hating homosexuals has nothing to do with Christianity. They are the mission field, not the enemy. Hating an activity though is not the same as hating the participant. I don't particularly like basketball, but I don't hate tall black men. Jesus Christ didn't come to bring a political party, He came to usher in the Kingdom of Heaven. This should always and only be the mission of the church. Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. It is not our job to try and create a more moral America, because we can't, it isn't our mandate, it will fail miserably, and it will accomplish nothing. The Pharisees were the most moral people in Jesus day, and again in the words of Pastor MacArthur "it was the highly moral, highly religious Jews fastidious about righteous standards who joined with the immoral, idolatrous Romans, flaunting their sins, and together they killed Christ...but in His dying He provided salvation that they both desperately needed".

Here's something that makes equal sense.

As for your second point, this characterization that Evolution vs Creationism is science vs religion is hogwash.

Hey you're right, somewhat.

It's religion vs. religion.

But now you're wrong.

The more science comes to understand the universe and the laws that govern it the more the evidence points back to the necessity of a Creator.

No it doesn't.

Matter and energy simply cannot create themselves.

Matter and energy are the same thing and yes they can.

So if you have an empty universe, devoid of any matter or energy, and suddenly you have a universe full of matter and energy it is completely irrational to suggest that it somehow created itself.

Pre universe wouldn't be a "universe" it's something completely different. No time, no space, no anything as you understand it in your day to day life.

In order for that to happen it would have had to exist before it existed in order to create itself.

Oh but your god can magically do this can't he? It's not rational for the universe to have always existed in some state but your god, a personal being that loves you, is free from that requirement. Do you understand why this is a special pleading fallacy?

That simply cannot occur, so in the absence of a totally naturalistic explanation, only a supernatural explanation will suffice.

Name one ****ing time where that has ever advanced our knowledge of anything.

Second, life exists on this planet, there was a time when it didn't.

True for the most part, but how far you march that back means why you define as life. Either way it's a whole lot farther back then your god says he did everything.

Science has one observation and one observation only of how life is brought forth and that is from other life.

No, it's been observed that all the building blocks of life happen naturally in multiple lab experiments. Life is chemistry, it's as simple as that.

There are no exceptions to that rule.

Like your god that magically wishes things into existence from nothing? Which you said can't happen?

So if you have a planet devoid of life, and you now have a planet teeming with life and if life cannot emerge from non-life than only a supernatural explanation of how that life got here will suffice.

All the material necessary for life was present, all it needed as the right environment to get going. On top of that it didn't go from "non-life" to planet full of life quickly unless you think hundreds of millions of years is quick. (Which is just for single celled organisms)

Third, no organism can produce an organism that is more complex than itself.

Define complexity mister irreducible complexity, a thoroughly debunked pseudo-science claim. Furthermore, how in the world do you have this huge blind spot where the most complex being to ever exist is again free from your arbitrary rules. Oh wait, it's because your rules are arbitrary and designed only to support your invisible sky daddy.

Again, this is the only observation from science, and there are no exceptions to this rule. No-one anywhere at anytime has ever observed any living creature produce anything other than it's own kind. Birds produce birds, dogs produce dogs, monkeys produce monkeys and humans produce humans. They can produce many different variations within that species, but never another completely new species.There are no exceptions or variations from that rule.

Except every species in existence, but do go on.

And since all those creatures exist and since only those creatures can produce those creatures then they must always have existed.

No..... that's like saying the earth was made specifically to support humans, when it's the other way around, humans evolved to exist for certain conditions that the Earth has.

DNA mutations only and ever cause corruption, destruction, or variation of existing information they never produce new or better information.

100% not true. The vast majority of mutations only result in junk dna that is neither positive or negative.

Also, DNA doesn't just contain information it is information.

Define information.

And we again have only one observation of where information comes from and that is from intelligence, there are no exceptions to that rule. Completely natural forces never produce information, and certainly not information that is usable.

Pulsars can be about as accurate as an atomic clock. Boom information that doesn't come from intelligence.

And last, natural selection is a myth. It doesn't happen. It never has, because it can't. Nature has no ability to select or cause anything to occur inside the cellular functions of a living organism. What happens within DNA happens because it is programmed to, not because nature caused it to happen.

<iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/a1Y73sPHKxw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

"Nobody times nothing equals everything is totally irrational, but it works in a totally immoral culture, because if there's no Creator then there's no Judge." - John MacArthur

And if there's no morality than you would be out raping and murdering whenever you felt the need.


So where did you steal that post from?

 

[duper]

Re: to be a good..

While I disagree that the possibility of religion has been disproven, I certainly disagree that science proves the existence of a god. I agree with Foxton that the first sentence of that post was, at least in part, true, but it went downhill from there. I have a very incomplete understanding of chemistry, biology, and physics, but even I know enough to know that much of what unhwildcat said is simply untrue.

My feeling, and it comes from listening to and thinking about my dad, who is both a devout Christian and a physicist, is that science in no way either proves or disproves the existence of any god. The universe began somewhere. Perhaps it began with some god wishing it into existence, and perhaps it just began. I do know that as long as there has been carbon and hydrogen, and molecules that contain both, there has been the possibility of life. In fact, it turns out carbon isn't strictly necessary, as there has been found evidence of organic matter with something else (I forget what).

So here's my point: this disagreement is stupid. No one can ever be proven right or wrong, so it is only people arguing faith. And frankly, it is bullheaded, stubborn people arguing faith. Bullheaded, stubborn people rarely if ever change their minds about faith.

Edit: I love the dramatic chipmunk video.

 

[Zudnic]

Re: to be a good..

Just because there's no rational explanation for the source of the universe (yet), doesn't mean there's a god. The difference is that a supernatural "creator" doesn't solve the problem, it just begs the question where the creator came from. The difference is that science takes a rational approach to these questions and doesn't automatically fill in gaps with fairy tales when there's gaps.

 

[duper]

Re: to be a good..

Just because there's no rational explanation for the source of the universe (yet), doesn't mean there's a god. The difference is that a supernatural "creator" doesn't solve the problem, it just begs the question where the creator came from. The difference is that science takes a rational approach to these questions and doesn't automatically fill in gaps with fairy tales when there's gaps.

The problem with this line of thinking is that there seems to be an assumption that a god has to be created, when the whole idea of many gods is that they were just always there, and/or that they just appeared on their own. Rational? No. But people who try to use logic and reason for everything either get very frustrated or very lonely. Or both.

 

[French Rage]

Re: to be a good..

Does anyone think they'll actually convince anyone to alter their religious beliefs on a message board????

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: to be a good..

No, but it might be possible to convince someone of the difference between Darwin and Lamarck.
(looks at gounh)

Natural selection is a macro level phenomenon. Not a micro/individual level phenomenon. You are correct that there is no evidence of natural selection occurring at an individual level. It's not as if an individual horse looked longingly up at an apple tree and decided "You know what would be super freakin' cool right now? A six foot neck." And lo, the Giraffe was created.

You know how you can be sure that selection occurs? Look at my puppy. I have one of these.

Never mind that this is treason for Maine fans of a certain age . . .

Mine, like nearly all of its kind, required surgical birth because its head was too large for its mothers birth canal. Boston Terriers should not exist, and would not exist, except that back in the day, breeders thought it would be cute to interbreed animals until they created a specific, small short-haired dog with an improbably big face. They didn't go all Frankenstein on one individual dog until they had a Boston.

Natural selection is quite literally selection that occurs naturally. If certain genes are associated with crappy hearing, then specific individuals will be at greater risk of being caught by predators, gradually diminishing the presence of "unfit" genes. Nobody's programming DNA to do anything. It's as simple as the cheetah catching some gazelles but not others.*

Do cheetahs eat gazelles? I have no idea. I'm a political economist, so pardon any unintended knee-slappers...

 

[Foxton]

Re: to be a good..

No, but it might be possible to convince someone of the difference between Darwin and Lamarck.
(looks at gounh)

Natural selection is a macro level phenomenon. Not a micro/individual level phenomenon. You are correct that there is no evidence of natural selection occurring at an individual level. It's not as if an individual horse looked longingly up at an apple tree and decided "You know what would be super freakin' cool right now? A six foot neck." And lo, the Giraffe was created.

It might be possible, but creationists continue to do it. On top of that most of them are about as intelligent as this ******nozzle and his manboy sidekick.
<iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2z-OLG0KyR4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Micro/macro is unfortunately a far too common distinction made by people who are unfortunately living up to their biological heritage of simple pattern seeking primates. They are too short sighted to realize that small changes over time can add up to big changes over a long period. They are like small children learning math. 1+1=2 is easy enough to understand, but when you add enough 1's to get to 10, woah there where did that 0 come from? And it happens again at 100? Who thought up this craziness? 1000? MADNESS!

 

[FreshFish]

Re: to be a good..

The problem with this line of thinking is that there seems to be an assumption that a god has to be created, when the whole idea of many gods is that they were just always there, and/or that they just appeared on their own. Rational? No. But people who try to use logic and reason for everything either get very frustrated or very lonely. Or both.

I think it was Arthur C. Clarke who said something like "any sufficiently advanced form of technology will appear to be magic to the uninitiated."

Watch me take this stick with a red ball on the end and make it burst into flames!! try to explain that to a Cro-Magnon.

We are too smug for our own good sometimes, I think...

 

[FreshFish]

Re: to be a good..

interesting words from Paul Ryan today....even more interesting is how he continues to accrue more and more support among responsible Democrats....

Less than a year ago, the House of Representatives passed a budget that took on our generation's greatest domestic challenge: reforming and modernizing government to prevent an explosion of debt from crippling our nation and robbing our children of their future.

Absent reform, government programs designed in the middle of the 20th century cannot fulfill their promises in the 21st century. It is a mathematical and demographic impossibility. And we said so.

We assumed there would be some who would distort for political gain our efforts to preserve programs like Medicare. Having been featured in an attack ad literally throwing an elderly woman off a cliff, I can confirm that those assumptions were on the mark.

But one year later, we can say with some confidence that the attacks have failed. Courageous Democrats have joined our efforts. And bipartisan opposition to the path of broken promises is growing.

Like last year, our budget delivers real spending discipline. It does this not through indiscriminate cuts that endanger our military, but by ending the epidemic of crony politics and government overreach that has weakened confidence in the nation's institutions and its economy. And it strengthens the safety net by returning power to the states, which are in the best position to tailor assistance to their specific populations.

More important, it tackles the drivers of our debt and averts the fiscal crisis ahead. This year, our nation's publicly held debt is projected to reach 73% of the economy—a dangerously high level that, according to leading economists, puts the nation at risk of a panicked run on its finances.

On the critical issues of health security and tax reform, our budget draws a clear distinction between serious reformers and those who stand in the way of the growing bipartisan consensus for principled solutions.

Our budget's Medicare reforms make no changes for those in or near retirement. For those who will retire a decade from now, our plan provides guaranteed coverage options financed by a premium-support payment. And this year, our budget adds even more choices for seniors, including a traditional fee-for-service Medicare option.

We also introduce a competitive-bidding process to determine the growth of government's financial contribution to Medicare. Forcing health plans to compete against each other is the best way to achieve high-quality coverage at the lowest cost, and implementing these reforms in Medicare can have the effect of lowering health-care costs for everyone. This is the key to increasing access and affordability while preventing government debt from threatening the health security of seniors and the economic security of all Americans.

Our budget also spurs economic growth with bold tax reform—eliminating complexity for individuals and families and boosting competitiveness for American job creators. Led by House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, our budget consolidates the current six individual income tax brackets into just two brackets of 10% and 25%.


We propose to reduce the corporate tax rate of 35%, which will soon be the highest rate in the developed world, to a much more competitive 25%. Our budget also shifts to a "territorial" tax system to end the practice of hitting businesses with extra taxes when they invest profits earned abroad in jobs and factories here at home.

We reject calls to raise taxes, but revenue nevertheless remains steady under our budget because we close special-interest loopholes. More important, our reforms will grow the economy—and the faster the economy grows, the more revenue the government will have to meet its priorities and start paying down the debt.

These patient-centered Medicare reforms and pro-growth tax reforms have a long history of bipartisan support. Medicare reforms based on choice and competition have their roots in the Clinton administration's bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare. And in recent years, I've worked with Democrats to advance these reforms.

Tax reforms based on lowering tax rates and closing loopholes go back to the Reagan administration, when Democrats served as the congressional co-sponsors of the landmark 1986 tax reform law. More recently, the chairmen of President Obama's bipartisan fiscal commission put forward a plan for lower rates and a broader base.

It makes sense that these ideas have attracted leaders in both parties. The premium support model offers the only guarantee that Medicare can keep its promise to seniors for generations to come. And pro-growth tax reform, by lowering rates for all Americans while closing loopholes that primarily benefit the well off, can eliminate unfairness in the tax code and ensure a level playing field for all.

While these ideas have enjoyed growing bipartisan support, President Obama has doubled down on policies that have drawn growing bipartisan opposition.

With regard to Medicare, his latest budget calls for giving "additional tools" to the Independent Payment Advisory Board, an unaccountable board of 15 unelected bureaucrats empowered by the new health-care law to cut Medicare in ways that will lead to denied care for seniors. Just this month, Democrats and Republicans alike voted for a measure to repeal this board.

And with regard to tax reform, the president's latest budget calls for taking more from American families and businesses by raising rates and adding complexity to the tax code—precisely at odds with the bipartisan consensus for tax reform.

It is rare in American politics to arrive at a moment in which the debate revolves around the fundamental nature of American democracy and the social contract. But that is where we are. And no two documents illustrate this choice of two futures better than the president's budget and the one put forward by House Republicans.

The president's budget gives more power to unelected bureaucrats, takes more from hard-working taxpayers to fuel the expansion of government, and commits our nation to a future of debt and decline.

The contrast with our budget couldn't be clearer: We put our trust in citizens, not government. Our budget returns power to individuals, families and communities. It draws inspiration from the Founders' belief that all people are born with an unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness. Protecting this right means trusting citizens, not nameless government officials, to decide what is in their best interests and make the right choice about our nation's future.

 

[Rover]

Re: to be a good..

interesting words from Paul Ryan today....even more interesting is how he continues to accrue more and more support among responsible Democrats....

I think you should change your name from FreshFish to StoolPigeon, because you seem like an easy mark for any GOP con job, such as Ryan's budget for example.

From what I've seen today, its the same old conservative crap that's gotten the GOP a 10% approval rating in Congress. Simply put, it tells the people born in the 1940's and 1950's - the very people who have caused our fiscal troubles by consistantly voting for sky high services but no taxes, that they have to contribute nothing. Even worse, they actually get increased tax benefits. Coincidentally I'm sure, these are the very same people who tend to vote Republican, although I'm sure that had nothing to do with Ryan's plan. Everybody who comes after The Greediest Generation gets to pay for them though.

I've got a better idea. Everybody pays, with one exception. The people who fought the Second World War get a free pass. They can't be any younger than 80 right now. They've earned it and aren't the problem. That means spending cuts. That means tax increases back to Clinton era levels when the economy was booming and the budget was balanced. That also requires some means testing of benefits. What it doesn't do is shift the burden from one demographic to another to benefit your political supportes. Tax cuts for GOP campaign contributors hasn't worked for the country. Neither will Ryan's plan.

So, its one thing for you to be played for a sucker. Its another to know that's happening and still go along with it.

 

[Kepler]

Re: to be a good..

interesting words from Paul Ryan today....even more interesting is how he continues to accrue more and more support among responsible Democrats....

Holy crap.

At least when mookie does it he's trolling / experimenting / whatever it is he's doing.

BTW, now that the Mookie Experience (TM) has switched up, any guesses where he'll go next on his Brownian cruise of talking points? How good is his Spanish?

 

[FreshFish]

Re: to be a good..

I've got a better idea. Everybody pays, with one exception. The people who fought the Second World War get a free pass. They can't be any younger than 80 right now. They've earned it and aren't the problem. That means spending cuts. That means tax increases back to Clinton era levels when the economy was booming and the budget was balanced. That also requires some means testing of benefits. What it doesn't do is shift the burden from one demographic to another to benefit your political supportes[sic].

Good luck getting that through Congress!

 

[Rover]

Re: to be a good..

Good luck getting that through Congress!

Only way it goes through is via budget resolution (50 votes in Senate plus VP) during a lame duck session after this year's election.

 

[Kepler]

Re: to be a good..

Just because there's no rational explanation for the source of the universe (yet), doesn't mean there's a god. The difference is that a supernatural "creator" doesn't solve the problem, it just begs the question where the creator came from. The difference is that science takes a rational approach to these questions and doesn't automatically fill in gaps with fairy tales when there's gaps.

God is an excellent metaphor. Completely discarding the metaphor is as empty as taking it as literal truth.

All religions are equal in what they are trying to do. A lot of what they did for primitive people has been superseded by better explanations. But there is plenty that has not. Spirituality is the seed around which religions grow, and it will outlive them all. Science is a totally different thing: a method for taking things apart. But understanding how things work doesn't answer questions of value. There's no way to get to ought from is. So there will always be religions. Right now the dominant religion is Utilitarianism, and I'd take pretty much any other religion over it if I had a choice.

 

[Foxton]

Re: to be a good..

God is an excellent metaphor.

For what? The most it works as is an authority figure that you need to appease in some way.

Completely discarding the metaphor is as empty as taking it as literal truth.

But it often claims to be absolute truth. In fact it's implied, regardless of how lukewarm you want to get in the vast majority of religions.

All religions are equal in what they are trying to do. A lot of what they did for primitive people has been superseded by better explanations.

True.

But there is plenty that has not. Spirituality is the seed around which religions grow, and it will outlive them all.

True, seeing as spirituality was co-opted by religions when it is more an emotional state that lead to such things.

Science is a totally different thing: a method for taking things apart. But understanding how things work doesn't answer questions of value.

Outside of objective questions a value statement will always be subjective. Such as "how many apples do you have? four" vs. "how much are those apples worth to you? About 3.50" The problem seems to be more that there are those who will claim exclusive areas of influence in order to make objective value statements on subjective questions. And by claiming exclusivity seek to avoid qualifying their statements.

 

[duper]

Re: to be a good..

For what? The most it works as is an authority figure that you need to appease in some way.

Dumb