Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I used to sell equipment to the Navy. I'm not under any illusions as to how they spend and what they purchase.
There's absolutely no doubt that there are abuses in the system, and I have personally witnessed them, but at the same time, it's important to be portray things accurately.
If people want to cry about something, they can cry about CUC-Vs. That's Cargo Utility Command - Vehicle (as in wheeled as opposed to tracked); a command vehicle primarily by non-mechanized and non-armor units..
What was it?
A GMC Jimmy that was stripped down; no air conditioner, no radio, no power nothing (except power brakes and steering), no carpeting etc.
General Motors sold those to the army and air force for just over $62,000.
You could buy a fully loaded GMC Jimmy off the show-room floor with an air conditioner, power everything, AM/FM Cassette with 4 stereo speakers, leather upholstery and some other fancy gadgetry for $38,000.
Talk about a tax-payer rip-off. The only modifications to the vehicles were an exterior antenna mount for whip antennas and an in interior mount for a battalion net and encryption devices (like NESTOR/VICTOR). Those brackets were nothing fancy; standard military grade aluminum (about 97% aluminum, some chromium, titanium and magnesium). The exterior bracket cost about $12 (I had to replace one once).
Quote:
Originally Posted by 007.5
1. No, high moral character rules out an atheist President based on ones ideology of moral relativism which encourages and accomplishes poor moral choices ; practicing situational 'ethics' is not a good foundation for a world Leader to work from. The President should also be One who strongly links himself to the beliefs of the nations Founders which rules out atheism entirely.
I'm an atheist and I'm morally superior to any god, especially to Yahoo and Jesus.
I don't practice situational ethics (and never did).
There are moral absolutes, and they transcend cultures and societies (which is why they are moral absolutes).
You don't ever steal or murder. There's no reason to do so. My child is sick and dying and I have to steal to get the medicine. No. This weekend in one of the neighborhoods there's a benefit dance with music and games to raise money for a child who has cancer and needs treatment and they parents cannot afford it. You just have to want to ask for help.
Immorality begets immorality. The US tries 3 times to murder Prime Minister Massadeq. Why? Because he wanted to nationalize the oil industry in Iran. What crime did he commit? None. Why did he want to nationalize the oil industry? Because the US and Brits were stealing the profits. If you can't hang with 50% of the profits, then obviously there's some systemic problems in your economy (and society) that run deep and those need to be addressed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 007.5
3. Your secular 'morality' is based on personal skewed liberty and unrestrained entitle-itis ... even to the point of a mother sacrificing her developing offspring on the alter of Sexual Hedonism . It is your secular moral suppression that is and has brought much moral degradation to the Nation as it continues to sink to new lower levels that even shock many Atheists themselves.
But I'm an ultra-conservative. I would permit abortion only up to the point the fetus becomes a sentient being, and after that, only to save the life of the mother or to prevent physical injury to the mother.
And neither of those violates morality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 007.5
4. Atheists must be moral relativists based on your 3rd paragraph response , and, because they want to pretend that absolute moral laws and values are from the ancient past and irrelavent for todays deviant mindset (except of course when an Offender morally violates you to which your reaction is a tacit admission that there are moral absolutes) .
But I have, as an atheist and ultra-conservative, argued that there are moral absolutes.
However, morality doesn't require gods or religions. It's just common sense. The reason not to commit adultery is not because some god says so, but rather because it is ultimately destructive to the family, the extended family, to other groups (friends, co-workers, members of military units etc) to the community and to society.
I don't need some god to figure that out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by northstar22
Everyone is a situational ethicist. Even you.
No, I'm not (and never was).
Quote:
Originally Posted by northstar22
If someone broke into your house with the intent to murder your family, you would probably kill him. However, on a day to day basis you probably believe killing is wrong.
Strawman Fallacy.
Murder, killing and slaying are three different things, and your beliefs on that are irrelevant.
From time immemorial, all societies and languages made distinctions between the verbs to murder, to kill and to slay. Over time, those distinctions became blurred, but it doesn't alter the fact that those distinctions are very real, and not just semantics.
To murder is to take a life with malice aforethought; with premeditation; for personal profit, personal gain or personal convenience.
To kill is to simply take a life. Negligence is often involved, but not always.
To slay is to take a life with authority.
If you would be driving down the street on a warm Spring day and a wasp flies into your car and stings you, and you lost control, crossed the center line and struck the Smith Family's vehicle causing the death of all 8 members of the Smith Family, is that murder?
No. It was not premeditated, or done with malice aforethought, or for personal profit, personal gain or personal convenience.
Nonetheless, you took their lives. Did you have the authority of the State to do so? No, so you didn't slay them.
You did kill them. Your actions caused their death. Were you negligent? I think not, at least not to the extent that you had control. Had you been under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or had you been fleeing/eluding the police to avoid apprehension or prosecution, we might argue that you were negligent, perhaps even criminally so, but that does not rise to the level of murder.
Self-defense is neither a right nor a natural right; it is a function of human existence. You exist; therefore you may defend yourself and your property from death, injury, theft or damage.
You may defend yourself, but you are not obligated to do so. It is your choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by northstar22
By the way, a good president MUST be a situational ethicist. Someone may be a pacifist, but if a rogue nation is planning a nuclear attack on one of our cities and military action is the only way to stop it, I would hope our president would authorize a military strike to protect our nation.
That also fails the situational ethics test.
You can't take someone's life because you have some misguided belief that they might one day in the future cause you harm any more than you can attack a country because you have a misguided belief that they may do you harm.
You may morally act if and only if there is an overt action.
Quote:
Originally Posted by northstar22
You 'pretend' this as well. Tell me, do you practice Levirate Marriage? It was a moral law from the ancient past, and God killed Onan for breaking it.
It had nothing to do with morality and everything to do with social security. When Europeans began colonizing Africa in the late 1800s, the same practice existed among tribal groups in the Congo and Niger River Basins. If your brother died, you married his wife and adopted her children. You weren't required to sire children with your brother's wife (as the Hebrews were).
As I said, it had nothing to do with morality and everything to do with providing for widows and orphans (in a rather harsh environment no less).
Quote:
Originally Posted by northstar22
What about polygamy?
What about it? It is neither moral nor immoral.
Quote:
Originally Posted by northstar22
You see where I'm going with this, right? You reject hundreds of ancient moral codes which would have been considered every bit as important as your "absolute" moral laws (no sex, no homosexuality, no abortion) that you push on people today. Why does it matter if I chuck a few more ancient moral laws out the window?
Don't confuse morality with societal laws. They are not the same thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by northstar22
Yes, I want justice just like every other human.
Justice and morality aren't the same thing either.
Im held to a new Covenant in Christ and not on the Levitical Laws for finding favor with God ; The misdeeds of the past which were committed by proclaimed Christians isnt the standard --- the standard is Gods actual character which is love, morality, righteousness and they are manifested in the 10 Commandments for Mankind as well as in all the teachings of Christ
Except that your loving god thinks it is cool to brutally rape and sodomize a woman, so long as you marry her afterward.
My morality is superior to your god and his morality. Rape is always wrong. Always. There is never any justification for it.
Too bad your god is too stupid to see that. Of course, your god doesn't particularly like women.
It was Barna Group that assembled the poll results showing atheists have little or no problem with violation of moral values, not me. Im just the Messenger for your extra added convenience. I doubt youd want your precious 16 year old daughter going out on the town with a 17 year old proclaimed atheist who tells you he believes in moral relativism , would you ?!
getting personal are we now two can play that game
If that was her choice of partner yes .
believing in god does not a good character make
i wonder if your spouses parents approve of the narrow minded **** for brains she /he married ???
While I do believe an Atheist can be moral if he so desires , I find that the heathen acts that occur in our society are done almost exclusively by those who declare that 'there is no God' .
In doing so you've glossed over the practice of stoning, the Inquisition, pedophile priests, and abortion clinic bombers to list a few of the "heathen acts" committed by people who declare that "there IS a God."
Quote:
Originally Posted by 007.5
Im held to a new Covenant in Christ and not on the Levitical Laws for finding favor with God
You've proven by virtue of your own words and beliefs that the tenants of Christian mythology change from situation to situation and age to age. In other words, even your morality is relativistic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 007.5
Deviance is based on the highest of moral laws , ethics, and values which are absolute....and not on social consensus ; social consensus is just the opinions of men, women, and children and if youre going to go this route, then Hitler wasnt objectively wrong by what he did since he had a great following . The standard has to be based on the epitomie of moral standards and ethical frameworks , since THAT is what we appeal to when we measure whether something is absolutely right or wrong. You can call a line crooked, unless you know what a perfect absolutely straight line looks like.
The word deviant is defined simply as differing from the norm. Your Hitler analogy loses steam when applied to humanity as a whole. When viewed through this lense the tenants and practises of the NAZI party were clearly deviant. BTW, no one knows what an "absolutely straight line" looks like. Nobody has ever seen, drawn, or built a machine that can draw one because it is an abstraction -an unobtainable absolute. Its the same with perfect circles, perfect squares, perfectly parallel lines, etc.[/quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by 007.5
No, you dont get a change in percentage from adding people who CLAIM to be Christians and whos behaviour and actions nullify that claim. The Study posted was based on people WHO FOLLOW AND OBEY moral values and standards verus Atheists.
One of your mythology's central tenants declares that all human beings are sinners -even born again Christians. In other words, even though they may be redeemed of their sins by the grace of your mythology's God, they are still doomed to sin therefore the distinction between people who you believe to be Christians and those who you believe to be merely claiming to be Christians is meaningless. All people sin. All Christians sin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 007.5
Mr. Dick......Uh oh, i see i hit a nerve....perhaps getting too close to home (?) . Back when i wanted to be an atheist (totalling some 10 adult years) , I had the same misguided opinion as yourself for excuses to live totally unencumbered by any sense of absolute prescribed moral laws from our Creator .
Our Nation was most certainly founded on the Judeo-Christian Faith including the 10 Commandments and Christs teachings whereby literally 23% of ALL written documentation from our Founding Fathers highlighted our wonderful personal Theistic Creator needing his providence for a healthy , civil, morally prosperous / economic prosperous America . (WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - The Founding Fathers on Jesus, Christianity and the Bible) . Its a shame we have such militant Groups today that want to whittle away at the very fabric that once made America truly beautiful and great. Now, we have to contend with the moral degrading mess made by those who are apathetic at their core toward obvious societal ills adopted from godless philosophies , who demand tolerance of every wrong and perverted way because its their 'right' , and who value their entitlement and liberty even over that of the most defenseless and innocent among us (the personhood of womb- residing Americans) because 'mom' bought into unbridled sexual hedonism in an effort to find ultimate fulfillment and purpose in life .... one of many failed humanist morally-relativistic attempts which promises so much, but cannot deliver . Such are the outcomes of people willfully buying into the atheistic appeal of no personal intrinsic value , meaning, purpose , hope, or future whos great Ancestor is nothing but an unwanted pond scum protozoa that came from dead raw materials and chemicals ... to which even world reknown atheist Biologists calculate its chance at a faith busting 1 in 10^40,000 th absurdity ! But alas....anything but a Creator will suffice... just so long as people get to be their own god . End.
Oh where to begin?
As I've addressed in previous threads, many theists suffer from a very peculiar perceptual distortion thought to be the result of the willful suspension of rational thought combined with the many vagueries of perception produced by the synaptic misfirings of their delusion enraptured grey matter. This pathology invariably induces in its helpless victim the erroneous belief that atheists are atheists because they simply do not wish to be constrained by moral considerations. The idea that atheism is adopted for intellectual reasons by an act of free will is never considered. The fact that the atheist's sense of morality is unmotivated by fears of burning in everlasting hell fire and therefore more altruistic and admirable is lost on this poor creature. The sufferer may also believe that atheists eat babies under the pale of a full moon at midnight.
The afflicted may also labor under the delusion that the United States was founded on the Christian faith in spite of the fact that most of the more influential Founding Fathers were Deists and were well aware of the dangers to liberty posed by religion and took great pains to limit its influence. He/she will cite the word "Creator" in founding documents as proof that the framers were Christian even though in their Deistic minds the term was more akin to the Native American "Great Spirit." Claims that American law is founded on the Biblical 10 Commandments are common despite the fact that the first four commandments deal strictly with religious observance and have no moral or legal value.
Discussing the Theory of Evolution with the patient is contraindicated. It is simply an exercise in futility because its never an informed debate and will only serve to reinforce and exacerbate the afflicted's delusions. For example: he/she may repeatedly cite Hoyle's Fallacy (1 in 10^40,000) regardless of how many times it has been thoroughly debunked.
The failure of the American legal system to legitimize and lionize his many petty prejudices leads to fits of irrational anger unresponsive to lithium and other mood stabilizers.
"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" ~ Jer. 17:9
No matter what faith or creed a person professes, they are as subect to error as anyone else. Atheism guarantees nothing. Christianity guarantees nothing.
There's absolutely no doubt that there are abuses in the system, and I have personally witnessed them, but at the same time, it's important to be portray things accurately.
If people want to cry about something, they can cry about CUC-Vs. That's Cargo Utility Command - Vehicle (as in wheeled as opposed to tracked); a command vehicle primarily by non-mechanized and non-armor units..
What was it?
A GMC Jimmy that was stripped down; no air conditioner, no radio, no power nothing (except power brakes and steering), no carpeting etc.
General Motors sold those to the army and air force for just over $62,000.
You could buy a fully loaded GMC Jimmy off the show-room floor with an air conditioner, power everything, AM/FM Cassette with 4 stereo speakers, leather upholstery and some other fancy gadgetry for $38,000.
Talk about a tax-payer rip-off. The only modifications to the vehicles were an exterior antenna mount for whip antennas and an in interior mount for a battalion net and encryption devices (like NESTOR/VICTOR). Those brackets were nothing fancy; standard military grade aluminum (about 97% aluminum, some chromium, titanium and magnesium). The exterior bracket cost about $12 (I had to replace one once).
I'm an atheist and I'm morally superior to any god, especially to Yahoo and Jesus.
I don't practice situational ethics (and never did).
There are moral absolutes, and they transcend cultures and societies (which is why they are moral absolutes).
You don't ever steal or murder. There's no reason to do so. My child is sick and dying and I have to steal to get the medicine. No. This weekend in one of the neighborhoods there's a benefit dance with music and games to raise money for a child who has cancer and needs treatment and they parents cannot afford it. You just have to want to ask for help.
Immorality begets immorality. The US tries 3 times to murder Prime Minister Massadeq. Why? Because he wanted to nationalize the oil industry in Iran. What crime did he commit? None. Why did he want to nationalize the oil industry? Because the US and Brits were stealing the profits. If you can't hang with 50% of the profits, then obviously there's some systemic problems in your economy (and society) that run deep and those need to be addressed.
But I'm an ultra-conservative. I would permit abortion only up to the point the fetus becomes a sentient being, and after that, only to save the life of the mother or to prevent physical injury to the mother.
And neither of those violates morality.
But I have, as an atheist and ultra-conservative, argued that there are moral absolutes.
However, morality doesn't require gods or religions. It's just common sense. The reason not to commit adultery is not because some god says so, but rather because it is ultimately destructive to the family, the extended family, to other groups (friends, co-workers, members of military units etc) to the community and to society.
I don't need some god to figure that out.
No, I'm not (and never was).
Strawman Fallacy.
Murder, killing and slaying are three different things, and your beliefs on that are irrelevant.
From time immemorial, all societies and languages made distinctions between the verbs to murder, to kill and to slay. Over time, those distinctions became blurred, but it doesn't alter the fact that those distinctions are very real, and not just semantics.
To murder is to take a life with malice aforethought; with premeditation; for personal profit, personal gain or personal convenience.
To kill is to simply take a life. Negligence is often involved, but not always.
To slay is to take a life with authority.
If you would be driving down the street on a warm Spring day and a wasp flies into your car and stings you, and you lost control, crossed the center line and struck the Smith Family's vehicle causing the death of all 8 members of the Smith Family, is that murder?
No. It was not premeditated, or done with malice aforethought, or for personal profit, personal gain or personal convenience.
Nonetheless, you took their lives. Did you have the authority of the State to do so? No, so you didn't slay them.
You did kill them. Your actions caused their death. Were you negligent? I think not, at least not to the extent that you had control. Had you been under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or had you been fleeing/eluding the police to avoid apprehension or prosecution, we might argue that you were negligent, perhaps even criminally so, but that does not rise to the level of murder.
Self-defense is neither a right nor a natural right; it is a function of human existence. You exist; therefore you may defend yourself and your property from death, injury, theft or damage.
You may defend yourself, but you are not obligated to do so. It is your choice.
That also fails the situational ethics test.
You can't take someone's life because you have some misguided belief that they might one day in the future cause you harm any more than you can attack a country because you have a misguided belief that they may do you harm.
You may morally act if and only if there is an overt action.
It had nothing to do with morality and everything to do with social security. When Europeans began colonizing Africa in the late 1800s, the same practice existed among tribal groups in the Congo and Niger River Basins. If your brother died, you married his wife and adopted her children. You weren't required to sire children with your brother's wife (as the Hebrews were).
As I said, it had nothing to do with morality and everything to do with providing for widows and orphans (in a rather harsh environment no less).
What about it? It is neither moral nor immoral.
Don't confuse morality with societal laws. They are not the same thing.
Justice and morality aren't the same thing either.
But it doesn't appear that you do.
I agree that there are abuses. My question is why?
Any idiot off the street should be able to realize that they're being taken advantage of. Why doesn't the military? I'm sure it's a very involved process but still!
As for the rest of your post....if people would just quit overthinking EVERYTHING, this would be a much better world to live in. Too many think that there is a conspiracy around every corner. Simplistic thinking on my part perhaps but sometimes it's the best way to deal with life.
Yes, they were wrong. Anyone who knows the political context surrounding the early American state and the effects of 18th-19th century Western imperialism knows that they were wrong.
Then why are Sweden and Norway, two of the most secular countries on earth, the two most prosperous and peaceful nations on the planet? Obviously, your belief doesn't apply there.
I. DO. NOT. BELIEVE. IN. GOD.
Why do you keep insisting that atheists are not atheists? I lack belief in a god or creator because there is no evidence. I don't believe.
That's why I don't chalk it up to "willy nilly chance." Evolution is non-random. Natural selection is non-random. Chance has nothing to do with it. Stop creating strawmen.
Hoyle's fallacy has been debunked numerous times. Why do you keep on quoting it?
Do you know my parents? Do you know why I chose to abandon Christianity? I am not a rebellious teenager wanting to "assert my independence," I am a grown, educated adult who made a choice of my own volition, my parents had nothing to do with it. Also, I am not someone who "wants to be an atheist," I am an atheist. Period. Please, keep your judgmental attitude to yourself.
What was behind your own volitional choice to become an atheist that requires far more faith than a Theist , who has to borrow from the Theistic Worldview in order to excersise the construct of reason to support his atheistic position, and who chooses to believe in Abiogenesis calculated by atheist world reknown Biologists at a grossly unreasonable 1 in 10^40,000 probability as confirmed by the very cofounder of the DNA structure (Dr. Francis Crick) himself ? Was part of your choice based on any personal ulterior motives apart from science ?
In doing so you've glossed over the practice of stoning, the Inquisition, pedophile priests, and abortion clinic bombers to list a few of the "heathen acts" committed by people who declare that "there IS a God."
You've proven by virtue of your own words and beliefs that the tenants of Christian mythology change from situation to situation and age to age. In other words, even your morality is relativistic.
The word deviant is defined simply as differing from the norm. Your Hitler analogy loses steam when applied to humanity as a whole. When viewed through this lense the tenants and practises of the NAZI party were clearly deviant. BTW, no one knows what an "absolutely straight line" looks like. Nobody has ever seen, drawn, or built a machine that can draw one because it is an abstraction -an unobtainable absolute. Its the same with perfect circles, perfect squares, perfectly parallel lines, etc.
One of your mythology's central tenants declares that all human beings are sinners -even born again Christians. In other words, even though they may be redeemed of their sins by the grace of your mythology's God, they are still doomed to sin therefore the distinction between people who you believe to be Christians and those who you believe to be merely claiming to be Christians is meaningless. All people sin. All Christians sin.
Oh where to begin?
As I've addressed in previous threads, many theists suffer from a very peculiar perceptual distortion thought to be the result of the willful suspension of rational thought combined with the many vagueries of perception produced by the synaptic misfirings of their delusion enraptured grey matter. This pathology invariably induces in its helpless victim the erroneous belief that atheists are atheists because they simply do not wish to be constrained by moral considerations. The idea that atheism is adopted for intellectual reasons by an act of free will is never considered. The fact that the atheist's sense of morality is unmotivated by fears of burning in everlasting hell fire and therefore more altruistic and admirable is lost on this poor creature. The sufferer may also believe that atheists eat babies under the pale of a full moon at midnight.
Discussing the Theory of Evolution with the patient is contraindicated. It is simply an exercise in futility because its never an informed debate and will only serve to reinforce and exacerbate the afflicted's delusions. For example: he/she may repeatedly cite Hoyle's Fallacy (1 in 10^40,000) regardless of how many times it has been thoroughly debunked.
The failure of the American legal system to legitimize and lionize his many petty prejudices leads to fits of irrational anger unresponsive to lithium and other mood stabilizers.
Prognosis: poor.[/quote]
The afflicted may also labor under the delusion that the United States was founded on the Christian faith in spite of the fact that most of the more influential Founding Fathers were Deists and were well aware of the dangers to liberty posed by religion and took great pains to limit its influence. He/she will cite the word "Creator" in founding documents as proof that the framers were Christian even though in their Deistic minds the term was more akin to the Native American "Great Spirit." Claims that American law is founded on the Biblical 10 Commandments are common despite the fact that the first four commandments deal strictly with religious observance and have no moral or legal value.
unquote
Not only the first 4 commandments but most of them have no place in american law .history or morals
there isnt a provision in usa law making adultery a offence .
neither is there any law commanding you honour your father and mother .
only 2 that apply are murder /kill and stealing
these or course are and have been outlawed in all societies for centuries .
dont need a * book of fairy stories *for society to condemm those acts .
Our existence, our personal planet to live on, and the many life forms on earth....demand affirmative beliefs of some sort for all of these as well as for the many societal issues at hand . No one is exempt from having affirmative beliefs . I wonder why atheists think they do ?
Now you are just building straw men again. I at no point claimed that atheists do not have "affirmative beliefs". I in fact very clearly said they have many and they are wildly diverse. The issue is with you making up what those beliefs are, based solely on what you know ONE of their beliefs is not, solely so you can troll a forum by deriding such people by assigning them beliefs and positions they do not actually hold.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
