EPTOn October 25 2012 07:57 paralleluniverse wrote:
An ATHEIST? A rational, scientifically minded person... scary shit.
An ATHEIST? A rational, scientifically minded person... scary shit.
Because Christians can't be rational or scientifically minded...
President Obama Re-Elected - Page 1033
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
Swazi Spring
United States415 Posts
Because Christians can't be rational or scientifically minded... | ||
|
DannyJ
United States5110 Posts
On October 25 2012 07:50 DeepElemBlues wrote: Do you think he - or anyone - could keep a secret like that through 15 years of campaigning for public office? We obviously have a different mindset on the issue. I don't see what would be so hard about keeping that secret, nor do i see why you think 15 years of campaigning isnt EXACTLY when you would and could keep that "secret". It's not like pretending to be religious would eat away at the soul of someone who isn't. He's not pretending to be a pedophile to get some position. And of course we certainly can't know anything about what he really thinks since we can't read someones mind. | ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
On October 25 2012 08:00 Swazi Spring wrote: Because Christians can't be rational or scientifically minded... Not really close to what he said. Atheist in most secular western countries is almost a must to get elected. Religion is seen as something you should keep out of political discussion as far as possible. Religion is personal and private and it is not seen as something particularly attractive. Calling atheism something bad is pretty deranged with the above in mind | ||
|
Swazi Spring
United States415 Posts
On October 25 2012 08:08 radiatoren wrote: Atheist in most secular western countries is almost a must to get elected The Christian Democratic Union just won the last federal election in Germany... | ||
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
| ||
|
Swazi Spring
United States415 Posts
On October 25 2012 08:17 Souma wrote: Don't you just love it when people throw out some minority examples to try and discredit a bigger trend? Are you referring to me or radiatoren? | ||
|
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 25 2012 08:20 Swazi Spring wrote: Are you referring to me or radiatoren? I'm referring to anyone who does it. | ||
|
Hypemeup
Sweden2783 Posts
On October 25 2012 07:57 paralleluniverse wrote: An ATHEIST? A rational, scientifically minded person... scary shit. I think the problem is that most voters think that religion is needed for a person to have morality. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On October 25 2012 04:35 farvacola wrote: parallelluniverse *Seemingly liberal *Aussie economics guy *Large number of substantive posts backing his position in his own words I hope you're joking, paralleluniverse is anything BUT a supporter of Austrian economics :p In fact, he's been doing a tremendous job debunking pretty much all of their claims in this thread. | ||
|
slappy
United States1271 Posts
I hope we're not stuck with another 4 years of Obama in office Cheers | ||
|
Resnov
United States1 Post
| ||
|
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 25 2012 08:30 kwizach wrote: I hope you're joking, paralleluniverse is anything BUT a supporter of Austrian economics :p In fact, he's been doing a tremendous job debunking pretty much all of their claims in this thread. He meant parallel's Australian, not an Austrian economist. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
| ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On October 25 2012 08:35 Souma wrote: He meant parallel's Australian, not an Austrian economist. DAMNIT, I had never confused the two until now :-D My bad >< | ||
|
farvacola
United States18832 Posts
On October 25 2012 08:30 kwizach wrote: I hope you're joking, paralleluniverse is anything BUT a supporter of Austrian economics :p In fact, he's been doing a tremendous job debunking pretty much all of their claims in this thread. Yeah, I didn't even realize "aussie" could hypothetically refer to an Austrian economist. Worry not! I was merely pointing out his "shrimp on the barbie"-ness  | ||
|
Risen
United States7927 Posts
On October 25 2012 08:35 Souma wrote: He meant parallel's Australian, not an Austrian economist. Hahahaha, I can't stop laughing at this. Just picture parallel's reaction XD | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
| ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
| ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On October 25 2012 06:20 sevencck wrote: What you're suggesting is heinous. It's not up to you to decide what sort of "help" best serves a woman who has just been impregnated by rape, while ignoring what she believes is best for her. Youre suggesting you can speak on behalf of rape victims instead of listening to them. Its misogeny at its absolute most fundamental and it is totally embarrassing that you think its a reasonable stance. For you to attempt to dictate terms of recovery to rape victims is heinous, particularly using respect for life as a pretext for your view. methinks you read what you wanted me to have said, not what I said. I'm not sure where you got anything specific about what "help" would be offered from what I said, since I certainly offfered no specifics. nor did I make any assertion about how a rape victim should be treated, or whether rape victims should be listened to or not. I would ask what it is you are suggesting that we should "listen" to them about and how is that relevant to my statement? | ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
| ||
| ||
