At first i thought it was just typical, and that woody was complaining like everybody else without a solution.
I'm surprised and disappointed at his propensity to prosecute whistleblowers. He seems determined to do everything he can to violate his own promise of greater transparency in government.
Obama tends to campaign from the Left, but governs from the Right. He's a moderate "Republican" in all but name. On national security issues, he's more totalitarian and anti-democratic than either Bush or Cheney.
In the before he is addressing programs with with specific, targeted goals aimed at suspected foreign terrorist and possible plants stateside. In the after he is addressing the invasion of privacy carried out on Obama's watch on everyday law abiding citizens that haven't given cause to be suspected of any wrong doing. Not surprising liberals would rally around dishonest editing. But I like it too because it shows the dishonesty of the left.
Wait, Sean Hannity is a blatant two-faced shill for the Republican party? I am gobsmacked.
Unfortunately, his rabid sycophants will continue to take his word as gospel, slack-jawed.
What is it they say? "Simple minds are easily amused"
May be a simple answer would get a response? A moral is a matter of cause and effect. Since is a good way of understanding cause and effect, so we can use science and reasoning to determine morality.
I think we can dispatch with religion, but not God. That is democracy rather than religion. Ideally democracy is rule by reason and God plays an important part in this. Science is now telling us, that the reasoning of the whole herd, or the whole flock, or the whole troop is better than the reasoning of any individual or limited group of individuals. While God, without mythology is a totally abstract concept open to all our ideas and consensus on our best reasoning.
There are a few reasons for needing God. Humans do not directly experience God so they can not know the will of God, and presidents do not do the will of God. We might like to believe God is sitting in our conferences and is answering our prayers, but really? At the very best we only have our human thinking. We have thousands of years of thinking and the internet and something good happens when we attempt to know as much as we can and share this thinking process with each other, and ask, what is God's truth? Not our truth or their truth, but God's truth. Without God, we function out of self interest, not what is best for all. God gets us past this limited point of view.
God is a mirror that reflects ourselves. In the past people looked into that mirror and decided it is a good thing for God to jealous, revengeful and fearsome, and later people looked into the mirror and decided a good God is loving and forgiven, and today scientific research is telling us it is better for our health to be loving and forgiven, than jealous, revengeful and fearsome. Science is telling us morality makes sense and seems to come with being social animals. Science is a good tool for exploring God and morality, and putting an end to superstitious notions of supernatural beings, a God like Zeus, a Satan and demons. But science is not complete, and so we need an abstract God to project ourselves into and ask questions, opening our minds beyond the limits of what we know and our narrow self interest..
An abstract God trumps even the power of kings. As this argument goes, the king may order no one bury a man, and the man's sister can trump this with, even before kings, sisters buried their brothers. That is, there is something bigger than human authority, and that something is God. This God protects our liberty. Without this God, we can end believing humans have absolute authority and then we have a power struggle for authority that may not serve humanity well at all. An abstract God like good math, demands proof. Democracy is the trail and jury of that proof, but the search of truth never comes to an end. God will always trump human decisions so long as that God remains abstract, and is not a known God like Zeus.
We need God because our brains limit the number of people we can personally know, and when any group of animal gets so large they can no longer function on a personal level, it divides. Small groups of primitive people, operate on a personal level. Natural morality requires this. When our populations are so large that most people are strangers to each other, we go from morality that is informal and based on knowing each other and our feelings, to impersonal and formal laws. That is, we rule ourselves with laws that are written down and apply to us and the unknown person. We do not have the same feelings for unknown persons as we do for known persons, so we need something for our moral judgment other than our feelings. A law that says, no you can not steal or cheat or lie to the stranger, and law needs to be enforced with trails and punishments. Humans are good at this, but if they are working without a God, or a God who has favorites, their thinking remains self serving and not abstract, not universal.
Admittedly some social/economic systems had laws that applied to some people and not others. This is most obvious in social/economic systems that include slaves or serfs, or discrimination based on economic or political status, religious or racial differences. We perceive differences between "us" and "them" and rationalize why laws should apply to them that do not apply to us. However, this becomes more difficult with a God above all. Israel is about the God of Abraham and chosen people, not a universal God above all. Obviously religion can become part of the problem, when there is a God who has favorite people, but if we put an end to this mythology, we are left with a God above all and democracy to explore God's truth.
Quote by: The Philosopher
This guy is an idiot.
I agree an elaboration is called for. Since I posted it you can figure I agree with most of his opinion, especially the part about we humans having such a high opinion of ourselves and our value to the planet and the universe. What points do you specifically disagree with?
Quote by: The Philosopher
This guy is an idiot.
Care to elaborate? Just bear in mind that George Carlin is a comedian and this is him addressing an audience...
This guy is an idiot.
Quite beautiful. But I thought this animation technique was used on the equally beautiful Tangled?
A not a word uttered. Beautiful.
Merry Christmas, Jack, you atheist. A joy full gift, indeed.
I've never particularly cared for the choral movement of the 9th, but nevertheless this is beautiful.
I always suspected atheists believed in magic but thought magic was logic.
On a serious note, I agree with one thing they said. Lables are irrelevant when it comes to atrocities. But having said that I have been known to argue about the evils of Stalin when some atheist starts rambling on about "religious" wars. Some earthly prize is always at the bottom of war.
Oh, I so want to name names...