DAMN IT!! Stupid FCC and Janet Jackson. Victoria's Secret no more

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- DAMN IT!! Stupid FCC and Janet Jackson. Victoria's Secret no more
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

Posted by butterfly on Apr-13-2004 00:40:

quote:
Originally posted by DaveSZ
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/ba...-home-headlines

He's even talking about cracking down on HBO style pr0n, and a jury from his own home district in Missouri doesn't even agree with him.

He's a fanatic plain and simple.

i found this funny:

quote:
Lam Nguyen's job is to sit for hours in a chilly, quiet room devoid of any color but gray and look at pornography

Posted by DaveSZ on Apr-13-2004 00:44:

That job would actually suck if you think about it.

Posted by butterfly on Apr-13-2004 00:45:

quote:
Originally posted by DaveSZ
That job would actually suck if you think about it.

true. but i still found it funny.

Posted by dj tek on Apr-13-2004 00:48:

Re: DAMN IT!! Stupid FCC and Janet Jackson. Victoria's Secret no more

quote:
Originally posted by Aldrian
i'm pissed. they are not airing the Victoria's Secret anymore due to that crap Janet Jackson did.

just cause the show show's alot of hot women in lingerie. why does one thing affect everyting in this society why?????

i'm sure the ugly ass fat women of the world has something to do with it also. they have been complaining about the yearly lingerie show for ages just cause they know that they will never be as pretty as these women and as thin.

and they know their husbands get their jollies worked up from the show more than they ever worked it up with their fat ass wives.

i'm pissed

LOL.

Posted by Electronicmaji on Apr-13-2004 00:48:

actually colombias more of a democracy than america here for a canidate to be elected he needs to win at least %50 percent of the vote and thats only happened once 1 year ago with our new president...

whats so bad about creationism in schools? there is evidence to support it...evolution is just another theory...the school system tramples on parents rights right now to teach there children what they want them to be teached if a persons parents want them to be teached creationism or any principles of any time they have to pay for a private school and I think that is ridiculous the goverment should provide schools for people of all beliefs not just those who beleive in evolution...

Posted by butterfly on Apr-13-2004 00:52:

Posted by douglasmc on Apr-13-2004 00:56:

hey uh maji... the stance is to not take sides here in the US. I dont know if its just your years of living under the catholic iron cross or not... but creationism doesnt have any solid proof.

nor does the stance that "colombia has more of a democracy" because your country is still nearly a 2nd or 3rd world country.

in truth, colombia is simply the refuse of catholic missionaries, bred with the natives. so i donno... power to your ethics i suppose.

Posted by DaveSZ on Apr-13-2004 00:57:

quote:
Originally posted by Electronicmaji
actually colombias more of a democracy than america here for a canidate to be elected he needs to win at least %50 percent of the vote and thats only happened once 1 year ago with our new president...

whats so bad about creationism in schools? there is evidence to support it...evolution is just another theory...the school system tramples on parents rights right now to teach there children what they want them to be teached if a persons parents want them to be teached creationism or any principles of any time they have to pay for a private school and I think that is ridiculous the goverment should provide schools for people of all beliefs not just those who beleive in evolution...

Ugh.

Give me a break dude.

Check out President Jimmy Carter's enlightened positions (he's one of the good kind of Fundies). It's my personal belief that he was the US's last truly Christian president, and he's done so much for the cause of human rights...

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww...&articleId=7572

Carter's Crusade
Jimmy Carter explains how the Christian right isn't Christian at all.
By Ayelish McGarvey
Web Exclusive: 04.05.04

Print Friendly | Email Article

Former President Jimmy Carter, America's first evangelical Christian president, still teaches Sunday school at his Baptist church in Plains, Georgia, and he and his wife, Rosalynn, continue their human-rights work in developing nations through the Carter Center at Emory University. In recent months, the Carters toured Togo, Ghana, and Mali to raise awareness of the public-health needs of those nations. In February, Carter spoke about the role of evangelical Christianity in democratic politics with Prospect writing fellow Ayelish McGarvey.

Republicans have been extremely successful at connecting religion and values to issues like the fight against terrorism, abortion, and gay rights. Democrats have been far less adept at infusing our issues -- compassion, help for the poor, social justice -- with any sense of religious commitment or moral imperative. Why do you think that is?

When I was younger, almost all Baptists were strongly committed on a theological basis to the separation of church and state. It was only 25 years ago when there began to be a melding of the Republican Party with fundamentalist Christianity, particularly with the Southern Baptist Convention. This is a fairly new development, and I think it was brought about by the abandonment of some of the basic principles of Christianity.

First of all, we worship the prince of peace, not war. And those of us who have advocated for the resolution of international conflict in a peaceful fashion are looked upon as being unpatriotic, branded that way by right-wing religious groups, the Bush administration, and other Republicans.

Secondly, Christ was committed to compassion for the most destitute, poor, needy, and forgotten people in our society. Today there is a stark difference [between conservative ideology and Christian teaching] because most of the people most strongly committed to the Republican philosophy have adopted the proposition that help for the rich is the best way to help even poor people (by letting some of the financial benefits drip down to those most deeply in need). I would say there has been a schism drawn -- on theology and practical politics and economics between the two groups.

What has attracted conservative Christians to a party that protects corporate interests and promotes an aggressive foreign-policy agenda? How do those square?

There is an element of fundamentalism involved, which involves the belief on the part of a human being that [his or her] own concept of God is the proper one. And since [he or she has] the proper concept of God, [he or she is] particularly blessed and singled out for special consideration above and beyond those who disagree with [him or her].

Secondly, anyone who does disagree with [him or her], since [he or she is] harnessed to God in a unique way, then, by definition, must be wrong. And the second step is if you are in disagreement with [his or her] concept of the way to worship, even among the Christian community, is that you are inferior to [him or her]. And then the ultimate progression of that is that you�re not only different and wrong and inferior but in some ways you are subhuman. So there�s a loss of concern even for the death of those who disagree. And this takes fundamentalism to the extreme. This is an element of the fundamentalist cause in this country. If you are a wealthy white man, then you are naturally inclined to think that the poor are inferior and don�t deserve your first consideration. If you are a wealthy white man, then you also take on the proposition that women are inherently inferior. This builds up a sense of prejudice and alienation that permeates the Christian right during these days.

What issues do you see galvanizing moderate evangelicals as they go to the polls in November?

I�ve been involved in national politics now for more than 25 years. But this year we will see the Democratic Party more united than ever before in my memory, and even the earlier history that I studied before my life began. I think we�re completely united with a determination to replace the Bush administration and its fundamentalist, right-wing philosophy with the more moderate qualities that have always exemplified what our nation is: a nation committed to strength in the military. I served longer in the military than any other president since the Civil War except Dwight Eisenhower. I was a submarine officer. I used the enormous and unmatched strength of America to promote peace for other people and preserve peace for ourselves.

Now it seems as though it is an attractive thing in Washington to resort to war in the very early stage of resolving an altercation; a completely unnecessary war that President Bush decided to launch against the Iraqis is an example of that. And I think that a reaction against that warlike attitude on the part of America to the exclusion of almost all other nations in the world -- and arousing fear in them -- is going to be a driving issue.

I think that the abandonment of environmental issues even endorsed by President Nixon when I was governor (as well as virtually all of the Republicans and Democrats) has been notable under the Bush administration. One of the things I learned as a young Baptist boy was to be a steward of the world that God blessed us to enjoy. And I think the abandonment of basic environmental standards by the Bush administration rallies us.

And I think the third thing is the obvious orientation of the Bush administration toward Halliburton, Enron, and other major corporations. You see this in the enormous tax reductions that have been granted to people that make more than $200,000 a year. That is another issue on which the Democrats will rally a common goal.

Do you think that Democrats will be able to attract Bible-believing Christians in a year that gay marriage will be used as a smokescreen to distract attention from those issues?

I think so. There isn�t a major candidate who has endorsed gay marriage; they are in favor of equal protection through a civil-union arrangement. I personally, in my Sunday-school lessons, don�t favor the religious endorsement of a gay marriage. But I do favor equal treatment under the law for people who differ from me in sexual orientation.

What about abortion? How would you speak to moderate evangelicals who withhold support for Democratic candidates on that single issue?

This was an issue that I had to face when I was campaigning 25 years ago. I have always been against abortion; it�s not possible for me in my own concept of Christ to believe that Jesus would favor abortion. But at the same time, I have supported the Supreme Court ruling of our country as the law of the land. And the present arrangement, whereby a woman is authorized to have an abortion in the first trimester of the pregnancy, or when the pregnancy is caused by rape or incest -- these are the things that moderates who have beliefs like mine can accept as the present circumstances in our country. The liberality of abortion is anointed by the laws of our country, including the ultimate ruling of the Supreme Court.

How do you think the fundamentalist Christian right has misrepresented Christianity, as well as the democratic process?

Well, what do Christians stand for, based exclusively on the words and actions of Jesus Christ? We worship him as a prince of peace. And I think almost all Christians would conclude that whenever there is an inevitable altercation -- say, between a husband and a wife, or a father and a child, or within a given community, or between two nations (including our own) -- we should make every effort to resolve those differences which arise in life through peaceful means. Therein, we should not resort to war as a way to exalt the president as the commander in chief. A commitment to peace is certainly a Christian principle that even ultraconservatives would endorse, at least by worshipping the prince of peace.

And Christ reached out almost exclusively to the poor, suffering, abandoned, deprived -- the scorned, the condemned people -- including Samaritans and those who were diseased. The alleviation of suffering was a philosophy that was enhanced and emphasized by the life of Christ. Today the ultra-right wing, in both religion and politics, has abandoned that principle of Jesus Christ�s ministry.

Those are the two principal things in the practical sense that starkly separate the ultra-right Christian community from the rest of the Christian world: Do we endorse and support peace and support the alleviation of suffering among the poor and the outcast?

You spent so much of your career working toward a reasonable, peaceful solution to violence and strife in Israel and Palestine. Increasing attention has been paid to traditionalist evangelicals� strong support for Israel, based on the New Testament prophecy that the reconstruction of the ancient kingdom of David will usher in the �end times� and the Second Coming of Christ. As a believer and a peacemaker, how do you respond to this?

That�s a completely foolish and erroneous interpretation of the Scriptures. And it has resulted in these last few years with a terrible, very costly, and bloody deterioration in the relationship between Israel and its neighbors. Every president except for George W. Bush has taken a relatively balanced position between the Israelis and their enemies, always strongly supporting Israel but recognizing that you have to negotiate and work between Israel and her neighbors in order to bring about a peaceful resolution.

It�s nearly the 25th anniversary of my consummation of a treaty between Israel and Egypt -- not a word of which has ever been violated. But this administration, maybe strongly influenced by ill-advised theologians of the extreme religious right, has pretty well abandoned any real effort that could lead to a resolution of the problems between Israel and the Palestinians. And no one can challenge me on my commitment to Israel and its right to live in peace with all its neighbors. But at the same time, there has to be a negotiated settlement; you can�t just ordain the destruction of the Palestinian people, and their community and their political entity, in favor of the Israelis.

And that�s what some of the extreme fundamentalist Christians have done, both to the detriment of the Israelis and the Palestinians.

Ayelish McGarvey, who writes a biweekly online column about religion, is a Prospect writing fellow.

Posted by montie on Apr-13-2004 00:59:

don't blame janet jackson, blame the bloody FCC

Posted by Krypton on Apr-13-2004 01:01:

quote:
Originally posted by arctic
Hehe. Sociologically, the US is fascinating, as it's slowly moving towards a theocracy. There are numerous things in place that violate the first amendment and the establishment clause - even the president is fond of dropping the old 'God bless America' and 'I'll be praying for...' phrases, and unlike in other western nations - young earth creationists and Christian television stations actually get time of day. In Europe, Japan, Australia & New Zealand and so on, YECs and ultra-conservatives like Ashcroft (who apparently believes that dancing is a sin) just don't get taken seriously. Australians are different to many Americans, that's all there is to it - this kind of crap wouldn't be tolerated here, or at least I hope it wouldn't. Truly, I genuinely feel sorry for the more liberal and non-religious yanks, it must be hell with all those fundies in your face 24/7. I admire your resilience.

Admittedly in Australia we have a censorship board riddled with a bunch of fucking morons who make some downright idiotic decisions, but they certainly don't go as far as people in the US would. Furthermore, there is evidence of them relaxing their practices, not to mention the fact that most people disagree with their actions.

well, you know, the US democracy was written and based on christian values and laws. the USA was founded on teh principles of christianity. back in the 1800's ext., if a public school did not teach about jesus in the curriculim, they didnt get gov't funding. coins all say "in god we trust". if u read the constitution, there are numerous referencest to god and the bible.

you also must remember that millions of immigrants have flocked to the USA for religious freedom. puritans, and others. so there religious zeal is still with us today.

Posted by butterfly on Apr-13-2004 01:02:

quote:
Originally posted by montie
don't blame janet jackson, blame the bloody FCC

true... they were just waiting for a trigger...

Posted by Krypton on Apr-13-2004 01:10:

quote:
Originally posted by arctic
Just a warning - there's a long winded rant coming up, so feel free to turn off if this kind of thing annoys you.

Don't get me wrong, it's far from a theocracy at the moment, but it's moving towards it, that much is for certain.

The founding fathers evidently recognised the need for church state separation, and as such penned the establishment clause and the first amendment (I believe that these are two separate things, no?). Thomas Paine in particular was an inspiration, 'The Age Of Reason' is an amazingly insightful piece of work.

The sad thing is, a lot of the founding fathers would be considered too liberal or immoral, and probably would be unable to be elected today. Paine and a few others were actually deists. At present, if you aren't Christian, or at least Jewish, then you can kiss goodbye any political aspirations - you simply wont get in, the religious right is simply too powerful. The RR is dictating it's particular brand of conservative and highly suspect morality to the majority. If they don't like pre-marital sex, then everyone else should hate it too! Thus, they push for exclusive teaching of abstinence in schools, which invariably ends up increasing the amount of unwanted pregnancies. Great logic eh?

Then there's the pledge of allegiance - changed to fight so-called 'godless communism' in the 50s. Add to that the constant 'god bless America', 'we should all pray' and so forth constantly uttered by the republicans, the 'in god we trust' on the money etc. etc., and you've got a recipe for disaster. From conversing with atheists, deists and agnostics who live in the south - it can be absolute hell for them. I've heard of cases of people being kicked out of home because they aren't a fire and brimstone southern baptist anymore. Non-Christians often feel ostracised and un-patriotic, just because they don't follow Christianity. It's a sad state of affairs - and to be honest, the founding fathers would be turning in their graves if they saw what the Bush and the religious right were doing to the constitution right now. It all ties back into the censorship issue � it's the religious conservatives imposing their theological views on everyone else.

Rant over.

if your not christian, u can always join the democratic party. the liberal side of the gov't. they support gay marraige somewhat, immigrants, abortion, and other things liberal.

the founding fathers made the "freedom of religion" part of the 1st amendment, b/c they wanted a gov't that wasnt strict and persecute its people. which is why so many immigrants came for religious freedom. they wanted to make a country that was free from any monarch or dictator, and "given the pursuit of happiness".

it wasnt because they saw "separation of church and state". they based the constitution on the morals of christianity..

Posted by DaveSZ on Apr-13-2004 01:12:

quote:
Originally posted by Heinz

you also must remember that millions of immigrants have flocked to the USA for religious freedom. puritans, and others. so there religious zeal is still with us today.

Yes that's the irony of it.

Posted by Krypton on Apr-13-2004 01:12:

quote:
Originally posted by Nou
that is one of the reasons I think the US is a danger to the rest of the world... all the worlds mis-fits, rejects, outcasts, persecuted, dejected people come here and we end up with a huge population of un-stable people.

i had to chuckle when i read that

but its partly true. the usa doesnt want would-be terrorist, criminals into our country, so they go to somewhere where they will be taken.. but i dont blame the gov't for not accepting people who could potentially harm society..

Posted by Krypton on Apr-13-2004 01:22:

Posted by blazed it on Apr-13-2004 01:35:

quote:
Originally posted by Electronicmaji
well you guys are constantly saying "dont force your morality on us"

well all I will say is " dont force your immorality on us"

more thant 65 percent of americans are christians 75 percent think the current fcc standards ARE NOT STRICT ENOUGHT...

now in this nation there is freedom of speech but there is also anti slander anti profanity and respect of majority laws..

if you feel offended, don't turn on the tv or the radio.

Posted by blazed it on Apr-13-2004 01:46:

quote:
Originally posted by Heinz
columbia?? how many marxists rebels is the gov't fighting?? why does bogota have the highest kidnapping rate AND murder rate in the entire world, and where does approximatly 80% of the world's cocaine come from??

COLOMBIA

if columbia is a democracy, than the USA is the heaven on earth.

k

cocaine is overrated.

Posted by yujie__ on Apr-13-2004 01:48:

it doesnt bother me. the VS fashion show was zzzzZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz compare to the other shows on TV. they need to uncensor tv shows to get more audience. no wonder tv and radio is dieying slowly.

Posted by Electronicmaji on Apr-13-2004 02:16:

sorry to burst your bublle but there is evidence for creation, solid evidence too...the truth is the evidence for evolution was found first and So hyped by the scientists that the creationist evidence is forgetten it was during the time of big science when the false ideas of eviromentalism and global warming were invented...

even either way evolution is a theory and it should be stated so bye schools schools should also state that there are several other theories that are just as probable and none have been proved...

Posted by A.J. on Apr-13-2004 02:33:

I don't know about schools in Columbia, but in Australia we are tought evolution, creationism and other theories from a young age in all public schools (schools run by the government).

Your assertion that there is strong evidence supporting the theory of creationism is incorrect. There is just as much (if not more) strong evidence to support the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution.

Firstly, creationism is based on the notion that there is one universal "creator" or God who created the entire universe, and that nothing existed before Him/Her. The likelihood of this being the case is equal to the likelihood that the Big Bang created the universe. It is just not logical to say that God created everything, and there was nothing before that....Who created God?

If there was a "creator" that created the whole universe, who says it cannot be the Big Bang, God or several Gods. We simply do not have any proof.

I could go on for hours about this, but i can't be bothered so i have only offered one argument.

Bring it on creationists......

Posted by A.J. on Apr-13-2004 02:35:

Here is an essay i wrote for my metaphysics class. It deals with the "proofs that God exists" of Thomas Aquinas, a famous philosopher who had a strong influence on the Catholic Church. A VERY LONG READ, BUT MAYBE IT'S WORTH IT, I DON'T KNOW.

1. Compare and contrast the first two arguments of Aquinas. Is either argument invalid? Is either argument sound (i.e. is valid and has true premises)?

The first two arguments of Aquinas aim to deductively prove that God exists. The argument from motion and the argument from efficient causes are very similar in structure and content. This essay will focus on the structure, validity and soundness of Aquinas��s first two arguments. This essay will also discuss the validity and soundness of each argument, and the weaknesses of each argument. Finally, this essay will argue that the first two arguments of Aquinas do not succeed in proving that God exists.

A clear correlation exists between the structure of the first two arguments of Aquinas. The first argument is the argument from motion. The argument begins with a simple observation that ��objects are in motion��. (Sober, 1995, p.40) ��Motion�� in this context is given by Aquinas in terms of Aristotelian philosophy. Motion in this sense is not just simple motion such as a ball rolling, but instead is ��the sense of changing states, moving from a state of potentiality to a state of actuality.�� (Stairs, 1998, p.2) The second argument (the argument from efficient causes) also begins with a simple observation �V ��some events cause other events��. (Sober, 1995, p.40) Again, this notion of causation is based on Aristotle. An efficient cause is something that causes another thing to come into existence. This ��coming into existence�� is based on the movement from potentiality to actuality. Both arguments begin with self-evident truths �V factual premises based on experience, which are supposed to be obvious to all.

The second premise in the argument from motion involves an assumption by Aquinas about causation. Aquinas assumes that whatever is in motion must have been caused to be in motion by something else. Also, Aquinas assumes that an object cannot be the cause of its own change. Likewise, in Aquinas��s second argument, he assumes that if an event occurs, then it is caused by an external agent. ��Nothing can be its own efficient cause, since if it were, it would have to be prior to itself, Aquinas tell us, which is impossible.�� (Stairs, 1998, p.2)

The assertion by Aquinas in the third premise that there can be no infinite chain of movers/movees is extremely important for his argument from motion. Aquinas believes that in an infinite chain, there can be no first mover. If there is no first mover, than there cannot be any subsequent mover. Without this third premise, the argument cannot proceed to the conclusion that God exists. The third premise in Aquinas��s argument from efficient causes states that there can be no infinite cause/effect chains. Aquinas uses the same reasoning here as he does in the first argument. He believes that in an infinite chain, there can be no first cause, and to take away the cause is to take away the effect so the rest of the series would not exist. The idea that there can be no infinite causal chains is extremely important to both arguments, but it is also problematic. This issue will be discussed later in this essay.

The fourth part of Aquinas��s argument from motion is a proposition that ��there is a first unmoved mover��. (Sober, 1995, p.40) This follows on from the third premise that there can be no infinite chain of movers/movees. There must be a beginning in the chain, and since it is the first mover without any previous mover, then it must be uncaused. The fourth part of Aquinas��s argument from efficient causes parallels the argument from motion. The proposition that ��there is a first uncaused cause�� (Sober, 1995, p.40) uses the same logic. There must be a first efficient cause in the chain, and since there are no prior causes, it must be an uncaused cause. The structure of the first two arguments is very similar in this respect.

Both of Aquinas��s first two arguments reach the same conclusion: ��therefore, God exists��. (Sober, 1995, p.40) Aquinas reaches the conclusion that the only explanation for the initial observations is that there is a God. Aquinas uses the same pattern for both of his first two arguments. He begins each argument with an observation that is self-evident, then establishes that there can be no infinite causal chains and that there is a first unmoved mover/uncaused cause, and concludes that God exists because that is the only explanation for these observations. Thus, it can be said that the structures of the first two arguments of Aquinas are very similar, although the initial observations are different.

Many criticisms can be raised against Aquinas��s first two arguments. The deductive validity and soundness of Aquinas��s arguments will now be discussed.

An argument is valid if, assuming the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. An argument is invalid when the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion. Aquinas��s argument from motion is invalid for two reasons. Firstly, the second premise and the fourth premise are contradictory. The second premise states that ��if an object is in motion, then it must be caused by something outside of itself.�� (Sober, 1995, p.40) However, the fourth premise says that there is a first, unmoved mover. If a moving object must be caused to be in motion by an external object, then how can there possibly be a first, unmoved mover? If one of the premises is true, then the other must be false. Secondly, assuming that there is a first, unmoved mover, how does this guarantee that God exists? A counterexample for this argument is a physicist who accepts the Big Bang theory and denies God. The Big Bang could be said to have the same likelihood as God of being the ��first, unmoved mover��. The truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion, and therefore, this argument is invalid. The argument from efficient causes is also invalid for similar reasons to the first argument. If premise two is assumed to be true, then the fourth premise contradicts the second premise, and vice versa. Also, the proposition that there is a first, uncaused cause in part four of the argument does not guarantee the conclusion that God exists. The Big Bang counterexample applies once again.

The first two arguments of Aquinas are unsound, as they do not meet the requirements for a sound argument. An argument is sound if it is deductively valid and it has true premises. As shown earlier, both arguments are invalid. It is also possible to show that there are false premises in each argument.

The argument from efficient causes appears to beg the question when dealing with infinite causal chains. Aquinas believes that unless there were a first cause, there would be no other members of the series. Since there are, there must have been a first cause. ��The trouble with this is that it seems to assume what it sets out to prove �V or close to it.�� (Pecorino, 2001, p.3) Aquinas denies the plausibility of an infinite causal chain. However, one must believe in a first, uncaused cause in the first place in order to accept that there can be no infinite causal chains. Therefore, the argument is fallacious.

The argument from motion commits the Birthday fallacy by assuming that by denying a first mover, there would be no subsequent movers. ��Saying that all chains have a beginning does not imply that they all have the very same beginning.�� (Scholz, 2001, p.1) There could be more than one first mover for mover/movee chains, and it seems that it is convenient for Aquinas to say that there is only one first mover �V God.

To conclude, it can be seen that there are weaknesses in the first two arguments of Aquinas. Although each argument comes to the conclusion that God is the only explanation for given observations, these arguments are unable to properly prove that God exists. The contradiction between having everything caused, while at the same time having a first, uncaused cause is perhaps the greatest flaw in each argument. The assumption that only God can be the first, uncaused cause/unmoved mover is another weakness in the arguments. The argument from motion and the argument from efficient causes fail to satisfy the condition required by deductive and sound arguments. Hence, the first two arguments of Aquinas do not prove that God exists.

Bibliography
�Y Pecorino, P (2001) The Cosmological Argument, retrieved September 9, 2003 from http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/pecorip...osmological.htm

�Y Scholz, S. (2001) Aquinas��s First Four Ways, retrieved September 10, 2003 from http://www.rogue-scholars.com/classes/lectures205-2.pdf

�Y Sober, E. (1995) Core Questions in Philosophy, Simon and Shuster

�Y Stairs, A. (1998) The Cosmological Argument, retrieved September 10, 2003 from http://brindecow.umd.edu/236/aquinas.html

Posted by Electronicmaji on Apr-13-2004 02:49:

ok since Im not experienced with apologetics ill bring in some of my fellow scholars...im a poly sci person sorry ill be back with some friends on the double...

Posted by halexander837 on Apr-13-2004 03:27:

Returning to where this thread started, I'm glad that I have the last VS Fashion Show on TV.

Posted by Eddie N MIAMI on Apr-13-2004 04:10:

shit I 'm mad as hell about this .I love seeing Adriana Lima walk around half naked.PISSED.FUCK BUSH AND THE FCC .

OK I'm Colombian-American and i gotta say some of the ignorance I ve read on here about colombia is kinda dumb.Maybe your just sayin that to make that annoying electronicmaji guy angree,I dunno but he makes colombians look bad in this board haha...anyways I lived in Colombia for one year in 95,and yea of course the crimes out of hand(terrorist bombings every week it seems)but the reality is colombia has alot of good decent people who lives in homes/apartments just like you and me and get a bad rap cause of some drug lords and terrorist.As for democracy,Colombia is a great example of democracy,we have never had a fucked up president (look at Venezuela with Chavez,theyre fucked up.)The colombian goverment is constantly fighting the war against terrorosm and drugs,President Uribe has even asked Bush for help but u know about that prick,maybe if colombia had oil......
yea its true some parts of colombia are poor,kidnapping mostly done by the rebels,Nobody ever knows when theyll be hit by a terrorist bomb,Colombia is the leader in drugs sold(maybe if the dumbasses in other countries would stop buying cocaine etc.. the drug trafficking would decrease)but unlike the cuban people,the colombian people keep fighting for what they believe in which is a more peaceful colombia.
But I must say Colombian women are hot and I kinda like how alot of them are coming here haha.Going out with a paisita (from medellin)right now.

so yea theres my rant.And fuck bush and the FCC again.A sad day in the USA.

Posted by Eddie N MIAMI on Apr-13-2004 04:12:

quote:
Originally posted by halexander837
Returning to where this thread started, I'm glad that I have the last VS Fashion Show on TV.
I have the last 2 years shows taped

Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »