|
DAMN IT!! Stupid FCC and Janet Jackson. Victoria's Secret no more (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Heinz |
| 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. :D
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? :rolleyes:
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. :D |
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..:rolleyes: |
|
|
| DaveSZ |
| 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.:p :) |
|
|
| Heinz |
| 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:p
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.. |
|
|
| Heinz |
| 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... |
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 |
|
|
| blazed it |
| 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. |
|
|
| blazed it |
| 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. |
|
|
| yujie__ |
| 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. |
|
|
| Electronicmaji |
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... |
|
|
| Vigilante |
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...... |
|
|
| Vigilante |
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 |
|
|
| Electronicmaji |
| 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... |
|
|
| halexander837 |
| Returning to where this thread started, I'm glad that I have the last VS Fashion Show on TV. |
|
|
|
|
