On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 20:23:43 -0500, "shu" wrote:
"Strabo" wrote in message
.. .
In OT - A test for Gunner & Stu & crew on Sun, 28 Aug 2005
14:29:32 -0500, by shu, we read:
for the record I scored as an expatriate
also, I think the test is crap anyway, it's got some bias towards what
the
left seems to *think* of the right, but is sterotyped.
for example question 14 needs to have more "groups" listed, such as
"white
americans", "christians" "baptists" "conservative talk show hosts"
"Neocons"
and also.. like question 15 and 16 ,. well bush is currently president,
what if hilliary was president? that would radically alter a lot of views
on
that question depending on your political leanings
I noticed I haven't seen anyone from the Left post their results,
maybe I didn't look hard enough, or maybe they scored too high on the
brainwashing susceptiablity and are embarrased
I think the Libs are genuinuly confused as to why all the right wingers
*Didn't* score as Nazi's. It just shows more of a lack of understanding
on
their part
Or, "I think the test is crap anyway."
Reminds me of the 'Hitler versus Stalin' dilemma.
Anyone attracted to either the Republican or Democratic
political party ideology is a socialist. Whether one
tests as a democratic socialist as opposed to a national
socialist, is immaterial. Neither qualifies as a proponent
of the Declaration of Independence.
******
shu
*another atheist libertarian*
A logical impossibility.
no
A libertarian is inner directed and rational. He understands
that there not a way to disprove god and he is comfortable
with this reality.
you have a different defintion of athiest.
let me explain
you are litterally correct. there is no way to disprove god.
but this is because there is no way to disprove a negative,
the burden of Proof for the existance of god is on those who believe in god.
it is NOT upto me to disprove the existance of god
as an atheist, the case for the existance of god to me has not been made to
my satisfaction.
furthermore, as an atheist, religion, and god are inventions of man.
it is Rational, and comfortable for me to live with that reality.
an Angostic is uncomfortable, they aren't sure there is a god, or not,
they may or may not think god has been Proven to exist.
I contend that it is Irrational to not accept certain realities (and this is
a problem with a lot of philosophy classes)
for example...
someone may say . "prove this chair existspoints to a chair
The proof of the existance of the chair, is in the chair itself, the chair
exists.. Just because.
it is Irrational to get into lengthy debates about "what is existance" or
"define chair" or "is it just a Preception that it's there." etc
in order to progress we have to define certain things about how our universe
works. the Chair exists, and based on Previous experience, it's unlikely to
spontaniously stop existing, or turn into a glass of wine. the ability to
prove and disprove ideas is in the realm of science. While our Senses can be
fooled. generally under such conditions we are aware of it, and can devise
logical tests to miniumize errors in our preception, optical illusions for
example, where you precieve lines that are all wavy, but are really
straight, you can take a Straight edge, which we Reasonably assume to be
straight, and measure it against the "wavy" lines
it is a Philosophy to Invent and debate ideas that cannot be proved Or
disproved, while they may be interesting mental exercises, they are
ultimately futile..
The debate itself is futile, the only winning move is not to play.
IMO liberalism itself seems to be mired in this philosophical outlook on
things, it's part of the reason that arguing with a liberal tends to lead to
obfuscation on the liberals part. they Invent ideas that aren't rational,
and are very hard to disprove.. they create serious allegations that are
fabrications based on shakey evidence at best. in this way liberalism itself
seems to be more religious in nature then reality based.
IMO.
an angostic is still in philosophy class, doing a futile irrational
debate... the chair May or May not exist..Oooo Spooky..
the atheist has been there, done that.. and is moving on to more important
matters that dont' involve superstition.
so no, i dont' think it's a logical impossiblity, or irrational to be an
atheist libertarian.
perhaps you don't really understand what it means to be an atheist.
*********
shu
and
Evil Capitalist Business Owner (ALECBO)
Meet Shu.
This example of a post is very deceptive indeed. She sounds
almost rational G.
--
Cliff
|