^^Too Trekkie. Get smaller and slap on a beef depreciation patch, and youll be fine. Now, go! chop, chop!

How lucky that you will most likely have another candidate then

*puts meat depreciation patch on hashis's butt*

Soulbiter wrote:Please show me where one of the candidates said they want their religion to overthrow democracy?

Hitler never said, that he was going to invade Poland. Long after the war, many germans still had doubts about the Endlösung. Think for yourself. Or read my links.

He backs/endorses/is up to his neck in The Discovery Institute. He's flat out lying. You did see this , right? By accepting the Discovery Institute you buy "The Wedge", which is exactly what his sugarcoating in the above sentences is all about: gradually losening scientific rigour to slip ...

The problem, as Vraith points out, is that Santorum seems to want to legislate based upon his ignorance. Which is pretty much what I'm implying too. That's why I DO think it's a problem. Not only does he want to legislate based on his own ignorance, but he wants to legislate so that his own ignoran...

Because God says so! Santorum's YEC belief would not be problematic in the way mentioned. It would be problematic in the sense that apparently he's either completetely ignorant, or chooses to close his eyes to overwhelming scientific evidence piling up since Newton! I would personally prefer NOT to ...

I might value myself more than an Afghan. Hell, I might value myself more than anyone else besides my family. But that's different from thinking everyone else is worthless, or forcing them to accept my judgment that they should think their life isn't worth living . You kill them. Period. The rest i...

[quote=""SB"]That first part is just about every president we have ever had and most that have ever ran.[/quote]Zod have mercy on you!

Good post Zar. However: Who are you to determine the value of someone else's life if the value of that life is up them? There you go again! You can't seem to make the argument without that absolute no matter how many (interesting) philosphical turns you take. YOU TOO determine the value of an other ...

clearly, we will be able to do all sorts of things to modify ourselves (or our offspring) long before we know whether or not we should do such things...but that is why the study of bioethics exists. Right on the money! Just like the post-delivery abortion discussion. Nobody is saying we should, or ...

People believe in God. Since they do believe, they live that out in their lives. It would be incredibly hypocritical of them to live that out, except when it comes to elections. I couldn't vote for anyone who thinks that the world and everything in it was created in six days, and who wants to make ...

Probably. But I figured I'd give people a choice

In that case I'll happily repeat that I consider anyone who votes for Santorum a fundie. There was a slight chance that I MIGHT have called them "duped" but not anymore.

Perhaps the assumption is that the system will provide a check against the worst of the crazy actually amounting to anything in office? The chief agenda amongst dominionists should be to make sure that as many people as possible assume just that, regardles of the actual state of affairs. It is my Z...

Conceptually, just begin with the notion of instinct and extend it into the moral realm. Instinct is a survival parameter refined through evolution. When you move up the scale of cognition from lower lifeforms to those with more massive brains it is natural to confuse instinct with thought patterns...

I was indeed using that as a central premise. And that may be wrong, though as an atheist I really have a problem seeing how.

But to go all in, let's say there were no humans at all. Would there still be value? (not talking about the value of human life here obviously)

Am not! See edit

Edit: Sometimes, when our discussions become philosophical, I can't help but think that most of the things we think are terribly clever have probably been talked to death by Kierkegaard, Sartre and their ilk.