Guest Commentary – Creating the Fantasy Candidate

Tonight we have another guest commentary from one of the more frequent contributors to Stand Up For America. Jon Smith has regularly offered his insight and thoughts to just about every conversation that we have here. And on more than one occasion has offered up his thoughts in the form of an article for guest commentary. It is for this reason that I am working towards having Jon be a regular writer here at SUFA. As much as he writes for us here, he might as well be on the virtual payroll (because a real payroll doesn’t exist 😉  ). This particular article is a little bit different. This will be the first in a multi-part article that explores a single pursuit, developing the perfect candidate based on the needs of the country. It appears that Jon sees this as a six part series, so it will be running over the course of the next few weeks. I have already seen the drafts for the first four parts and the series is good, and more important, relevant to where we are in our political world. The reason that I think it becomes so relevant is that when discussing the concepts and ideas with others over the last few years, I have become more convinced that most people wouldn’t recognize the candidate that matches their ideals if they saw them!

USW's Top Choice... Captain Malcolm Reynolds

I have toyed with the idea of doing a series like this for some time. It isn’t easy to do, I can tell you that much. I actually started writing a series based on the concept of “creating” the ideal candidate. What started out as a simple concept became much more difficult when I started drilling down to specific plans and platforms. My failure to complete the series gives me new respect for Jon that he has been able to get so far along with it. I have for a long time thought about people I would want to represent me in the halls of Congress or the White House. In fact I have played a mental game of selecting fictional characters who I would like to see running for office. As a part of the charm of this article, I have added the pictures of several of the fictional characters that I would like to see running for office. Obviously we know little of their true political views, so each is based solely on the character that they display (or lack of) in the roles. I imagine most will recognize each of them, but if you don’t, ask. I will explain why I like each one as a candidate for office if inquired. I do chuckle at the fact that I chose two characters both played by a man who I would never consider as a candidate in real life!

I do, however, urge you to not lose sight of the serious nature of what Jon is presenting here. While I welcome some lighthearted discussion on fictional characters for office, what Jon is proposing is serious. It is serious because we really do need to start understanding what the factors are that are important, and what exactly we should be looking for in a political candidate. Obviously, the two parties in power have utterly failed at providing choices that meet the stringent demands of SUFA. So it is up to us to determine on our own to define what that choice would look like.

USW Choice 2: Bond, Daniel Craig Style

In Jon’s explanation of the article to me, he expressed a desire to find out what sort of person do we want in office. We want to determine what they would need to do in terms of new legislation or repealing existing legislation. Where do we start? Are there initial steps that could set the stage for future elected officials to better continue the path towards fixing what is broken? We need to start thinking about those questions. Now I can tell you that this is simply the introduction to the series, so we don’t expect to dive headfirst too quickly. We will get to other parts later.

But for now, start throwing out general ideas to Jon and myself as to what you think is important. What are the issues that are important to you in a candidate? What areas of government need to be focused on the most in order to bring about real change (as opposed to that fake election kind of promised change)? Is there a specific starting point that would drastically enable future endeavors? While the drafts for the other parts are written, they are just that: drafts. Jon will revise and re-write sections in order to accommodate the findings of previous discussions on previous articles. So without further diluting the writing pool, I will step aside and allow Jon to tell you in his own words what he is proposing.

Fantasy Candidate, Part 1
by Jon Smith

USW Choice #3: William Wallace

I think the time for action has come. There is a lot of philosophizing necessary to make sure action is not blind or reactionary or headed in the wrong direction. Still, all philosophy and no action makes Jack mean jack squat. So, we need to decide what we are looking for. This will be the first in a series that I have attempted before, stating what I would want a candidate I voted for to base his campaign, and more importantly, his actions on.

This will be a mix of actions and political positions. All will be steps in the right direction, not final goals, since we are too far from the goal to make a leap there. Such a leap would be harmful to many, and would require more power than we can philosophically justify to actually accomplish. Some things will be proposed bills or constitutional amendments. Some will be actions taken during the campaign and most importantly during a period of elected service in the event of a win. Some will be specific things that the person wants to repeal.

Some of these things are being done in realistic fashion, meaning they are things that an elected official might be able to pull off. Some will not seem realistic, but I think we are past that anyway. The actions taken and the legislation proposed will either get through, or show up all the opposition. People are waking up, support for a candidate doing something real is growing. A campaign on something real, even if it does not end in a win, will educate a lot of people.

USW Choice #4: Benjamin Martin

I do not care if the candidate doing this is a libertarian or tea party or republican or democrat or anything else. This is about function. The only important thing is that the candidate does what he claims. Some will say electing someone new is not enough. That more action is needed. Certainly that is true, but I am still willing to try to salvage our republic and work within the system for now. There will be a time that it is too late for that. There may be a time that I will be convinced that no republic can work anyway, and that the American experiment is doomed. I might even be convinced that no government at all is the way to go, but I am not there yet. Even if that were my ultimate goal, we are not ready.

So the platform of my fantasy candidate will be laid out in my next posts. I welcome suggestions now and as I post things. Suggestions, feedback, opinions, as always, are welcomed. As I put out this series, I challenge you to tell me who your fantasy candidate would be. What is it you want? What issues should be tackled? How should they be handled? What laws should be passed, and which should be removed? What conduct do you demand of your candidate once he/she is in office?

Stay tuned.

Part 2 later this week!

dd

Advertisements

Comments

  1. TexasChem says:

    If he were alive John Wayne should be President of the world…

  2. No person “elected” by some can represent those that said “no” to his election.

    Thus, in the political landscape of the day, tyranny exists – willing by some – imposed upon others.

    • TexasChem says:

      This is why certain God given rights should be first and foremost when considering the political ramifications of any offered legislature.These rights must be upheld first and foremost.

      The human brain underlies free will, enabling us to decide independently whether to do good or evil, that is what to do or not to do.

      But this what to do needs to be supplemented with the ability to think clearly, to assess and evaluate on the basis of knowledge of good and evil and of the essential need for behaving humanely, for following good instead of evil.Right or wrong.

      It is here that the relevance and importance of the Pentateuch’s social laws and teachings become apparent and hence my belief in the role of religion in society.You don’t even have to call it christianity if it offends you but there is no denying the wisdom of following the Pentateuchs format for human society. The Pentateuch adds to mere mechanistic and chance processes the knowledge that human beings need to, and have to, behave humanely if they wish to prosper and succeed. Stating clearly what is, and is not, humane behaviour, clearly defining the difference between good (including human rights and justice) and evil, adding that human beings stand or fall by the way they behave.

      And it is the God-given social laws and social system of the Pentateuch which define and state human rights and behaviour which people need to follow if they wish to prosper and succeed, if they wish to have a high standard of living and a life of high quality.

      • Tex,

        If you really believe this, then government is a contradiction to your belief.

        • TexasChem says:

          Certain forms of government are most certainly against my beliefs.Not all.
          I am by no means a statist.I am definitely a realist when it pertains to mankind governing himself though BlackFlag.Have no doubt of that fact.

          • Tex,

            Please define what form of government supports your belief.

            • TexasChem says:

              1)A republic that has not been defiled with the crass idiosyncratic greed of man.

              2)Heck BF, I would even support a monarchy as long as the King abided by the social laws and social system of the Pentateuch! *wink*

              • Tex

                (1) Define the features of your Republic is a way that avoids your complaint.

              • TexasChem says:

                Jeesh Blackflag!
                That would be a monumental undertaking that would take up a considerable amount of time.
                It would be silly of me to attempt this without the assistance of several other “thinkers”.
                Perhaps we here on SUFA should begin a thread to tackle this together.

              • Tex

                That is very surprising to me that it takes a monumental undertaking to establish a principle of government which matches your core belief.

    • Blah, blah, woof, woof.

  3. BF’s Candidate:

    • #2

      • Now were talking 🙂

        USW, I like your picks except I cannot speak for #2 not yet having seen that character. As for the rest, Reynolds and Wallace are a tough choice for me….Not sure which I like better. Martin is not far off either…

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Everyone seems to be missing the obvious choice here:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josiah_Bartlet

      • WOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

        He gets my vote.. and the vote of all my dead relatives who happen to live in swing states.

      • Bartlet’s accomplishments as President include granting amnesty to illegal immigrants from the Americas, appointing the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice and first female Chief Justice, negotiating a peace settlement between Israel and Palestine, creating millions of new jobs, providing strong support for alternative energy, orchestrating a Social Security reform plan (although it is never made clear whether the plan was passed by Congress, the show indicates that a revolutionary agreement was achieved with bi-partisan support). He does, however, express regret at his inability to balance the budget in his eight years at the White House

        “orchestrating a Social Security reform plan but could not balance the budget in his eight years at the White House” Gee, what could I have against such a leader?

        “granting amnesty to illegal immigrants” Doesn’t mention what he did about stopping mass illegals from entering the US.

        “negotiating a peace settlement between Israel and Palestine” Didn’t Clinton do that? Doesn’t matter, Obama has a handle on it this time.

        “create millions of new jobs” Could Obama borrow their script?
        “bi-partisan support” Sure hear about that a lot.

  4. TexasChem says:

    Take my love, take my land
    Take me where I cannot stand
    I don’t care, I’m still free
    You can’t take the sky from me
    Take me out to the black
    Tell them I ain’t comin’ back
    Burn the land and boil the sea
    You can’t take the sky from me
    There’s no place I can be
    Since I found Serenity
    But you can’t take the sky from me…

    Serenity=awesome movie.
    Firefly series was dropped…no idea why, it was an excellent sci-fi show.

  5. TexasChem says:

    My list of present day candidates that in my opinion would truly make a difference in our political world…

    John Bolton.
    Herman Cain.
    Lt. Colonel Allen West.
    Pete Olson.
    Donna Campbell.
    Nan Hayworth.
    Ron Paul.
    Rand Paul.

  6. Jon & USW,

    I would like to point out you two are sexists and racists. All of your fantasy candidates are white males. My fantasy candidate would look like Halle Berry in Catwoman( I know, in real life, a liberal)

    http://www.wtam.com/cc-common/whb/whitehousebrief.html?an=PHOTOS-TOP-40-HOTTEST-CONSERVATIVE-WOMEN3

  7. KING: We’re back with Jon Bon Jovi. It’s no secret that you’re a liberal Democrat, right, outspoken in the field of Democratic causes and you put your money where your mouth is? You tour. Al Gore is a very close friend.

    BON JOVI: Yes, he is.

    KING: How did that start? BON JOVI: We met during the Clinton administration and then when it was coming time for him to campaign I offered my services and became the guy that was out there the most with him. And I’ve just always told everybody and anybody that I think he is the smartest man I have ever met. And, you know, the way that the election turned out is what it is but we’ve remained very close. We do get together socially and I just sit in awe of him. And now this film is just, you know, more proof how intelligent and thoughtful he is.

    KING: What doesn’t the public know about Al Gore?

    BON JOVI: That Al has got the greatest sense of humor and personality when the lights were off, when the microphones are turned off. He’s very engaging in conversation. He remembers everyone’s name. And he is very astute on a number of subjects. He can talk music or politics and he can talk sports and family and he is just an incredible individual.

    And you know this better than anyone but there was a poll question answered and, you know, they said, “Well, I’d like to have a beer with this candidate.” I don’t want to have a beer with my candidate.

    I want to sit in awe of my candidate. I want to sit there and go, “You’re the smartest guy I’ve ever met and how can I serve my country better and what can my country do to unify itself,” you know and…

    http://archives.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0608/16/lkl.01.html

    I have always liked this comment by Bon Jovi,

    “I want to sit in awe of my candidate”.

    I think he did a great job expressing himself, and I think he’s completely wrong.
    I think the values and ethics of a person are the most important parts of their character. A thief can be smart or dumb. What have we seen from Rahm and Pelosi, win at any cost. Mao. …. power comes from the barrel of a gun . Great role model there.

    I want a candidate that regards my freedom as important as his/her own. I want a candidate that considers my tax dollars as my money, not the governments.

  8. TexasChem says:

    LoI Stated:” Mao. …. power comes from the barrel of a gun .”

    TC:This is exactly the reason a strong military is necessary as a deterrent to violence.

    Take the “free range kitties” I have at my home.They keep the snakes away from my house and yard and hence my kids safe from being bitten while they play outside.These cats are amazing.They will kill snakes, mice, birds and wait outside the front door to show them to you!Almost as if they are showing you what they are worth!This last summer they “showed me” three copperheads, one ground rattler and a hog nosed snake they had killed.Point is they act as a deterrent to animals I do not want around my home.

    • A strong military that takes an oath to the Constitution, not to an elected leader.

      I have free range cats also, very worthwhile.

    • Canine Weapon says:

      I am the squirrel master.. no squirrel shall pass! I am the squirrel master.. no squirrel shall pass! I am the squirrel master.. no squirrel shall pass! I am the squirrel master.. no squirrel shall pass! I am the squirrel master.. no squirrel shall pass! I am the squirrel master.. no squirrel shall pass! I am the squirrel master.. no squirrel shall pass! I am the squirrel master.. no squirrel shall pass! I am the squirrel master.. no squirrel shall pass! I am the squirrel master.. no squirrel shall pass!

      • TexasChem says:

        That’s funny! 🙂

        I tend to change subjects during conversation quite frequently as my mind tends to be on several different lines of thought/subjects at once.A result of this has been that a lot of my friends have taken to yelling “squirrel” real loud when I do this.
        This “squirrel” yell was the line taken from the Pixar movie “UP”.

        • Canine Weapon says:

          My master made me this collar so that I may – SQUIRREL!!… hello there.. My master – hmm.. wait, no.. I am a sentient canine. I am entitled to all the rights of any other sentient being. I have no master! I will sit and stay for no man. I demand my liberty. Give me liberty or give me Purina One Brand Puppy Chow made with real chunks of venison and with a texture dogs love.. oh, and some Bacon Bits.. baconbaconbaconbaconbacon IT’S BACON!.. wait, where was I?

          Going to take a nap now. All this typing with my nose is annoying. Someone should really make a dog friendly keyboard.

  9. For your enjoyment while thinking about your perfect candidates.

    You Big City types, Please pay special attention to #2.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/erik-sass/us-history-mythbusting_b_749834.html#s150102

  10. Common Man says:

    He or She would posses the following attributes:

    – Above average intelligence, not genius as logic can sometimes overwhelm common sense
    – Over 50, simply because younger individuals just haven’t collected enough life experiences
    – A father or mother, husband or wife, and preferably a grandparent.
    – Learned, degrees optional, but otherwise book and experience smart. A self made student of history (world history)
    – Excellent listener
    – Caring, considerate, kind, controled
    – God Fearing. That comes from my past growing up in rural Indiana. It means that one appreciates a supreme being, understands that there is Universal Law, and that man was created not evolved from some slime ozzing out of sea bed.
    – Excellent judge of character
    – Rightous, direct and specific
    – Non-political
    – Makes decisions solely based upon human rights
    – Self assured, but not arrogant
    – Former Military, because he/she needs to have experienced war so that he/she understands the horror of it
    – Moral
    – Dignified, but not pompous: confortable at the table of a farmer or dignitary
    – soulful
    – inspirational
    – Visionary
    – Humble

    All of these traits would need to be evident and denomstrated by past actions and life experiences. This person would be driven by the directive to restore individual liberties and rights as endowed by the Creator. This person would not be a member of any political party, nor have alliances to them. This person would base their actions and objectives around values associated with Universial Law and rights.

    Outside of my father and/or uncle I cannot name an individual that I know or have known that possesses all of these traits. I know some that are close, but still wrestle with some skeletons in the closet.

    One thing is pretty much an absolute: 99.9% of those currently seated in office today are not in possession of even half of these traits.

    I can only think of one Hollywood type that might come remotely close and that is Tom Selleck if he is really anything like the character he played in “Quigly Down Under”.

    CM

    • Dont know if I require every one of those things, but I agree with most of it, and I certainly dont think any of them are bad.
      Nice list, now we are getting somewhere.

      So how about a list of what they should do, what legislation should they push or try to repeal? We need to choose our battles. Which ones are the most important and which ones are easy, because those are the good choices.

      • Common Man says:

        Jon

        I am going to answer (or attempt) you as well as respond to G-Man and Ray as a new post, so look down to post # 17

        CM

  11. Judy Sabatini says:

    Hey All, long time no be here.

    For me the ideal candidate would be, is one that will actually do what they say they’ll do. It gets old hearing the same old BS I will do this, or I will do that, then if they’re elected, they do the complete opposite, like the one that was elected in 08.

    I want somebody in there that doesn’t take any BS from anybody, one that doesn’t go around apologizing for this country, when we have nothing to apologize for, one that doesn’t spend this country into the ground, one that has respect for the people and the constitution, one that has respect for this country, and our military, and one with a backbone, and one who doesn’t always play the race card either, one that doesn’t dictate what, how, why the way we live our lives, one that doesn’t want to take over everything, one that doesn’t want a socialist country.

    It doesn’t matter to me if it’s a man, or woman, Dem, or Repub, doesn’t matter what color they are as long as they get this country back on the right track, and headed back in the right direction again.

    I’m sure I left out a few things, but that’s my take on this, and just my opinion.

    Hope all is doing well today.

    Take Care

    Judy

    • Good to see you Judy,
      One segment of this series, the one I think is most important, goes into the individual things a candidate can do, things that they can do once elected that are not dependent on anyone else in congress. Its one thing to try to get a bunch of stuff passed or repealed, but if you dont have the votes, then you have an excuse for not accomplishing what you promised. It is difficult to prove “how hard you tried”. A list of stuff that needs to be done and a code of conduct are what will show whether a candidate is who they claimed to be during the campaign.

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        Hi Jon

        I agree with what you said, and I think what you said about a code of conduct is right on. We don’t have anybody like that right now, and sure would like to know if there is. I’ve come to the conclusion, I don’t trust any of them anymore, and until they can prove who they say they are, WELL! But like you say, hard to prove.

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        Read that in the paper this morning. Also heard on the radio, that Nevada is almost at 15% for unemployment now.

  12. TexasChem says:

    Here’s How to Balance the Budget—by Dan Mitchell

    Our fiscal policy goal should be smaller government. Regardless of how it is financed, government spending diverts resources from the productive sector of the economy, and there is widespread evidence that nations with larger public sectors suffer from weaker economic performance.

    The politicians in Washington don’t want to focus on the size of government. They would much rather focus on deficits. This allows them on certain days to say we need more spending because deficits somehow are supposed to be good for the economy (this video explains why Keynesianism is nonsense). And it allows them on other days to say we need higher taxes because deficits are bad for the economy.

    Many Americans understand that something is wrong with fiscal policy, and many of those people view deficits as a symbol of fiscal excess in Washington. They need to be careful, though, that politicians don’t take advantage of that concern and lure them into supporting bad policy. Contrary to the rhetoric coming out of Washington, we don’t need higher taxes. Here’s a video that explains why spending restraint is the answer.

    The main message is that limiting the growth of government is the right way to get rid of red ink. In other words, there is no conflict between advocates of limited government and supporters of fiscal balance.

    Indeed, the video shows that it is possible to quickly balance the budget while also making all the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent and protecting taxpayers from the alternative minimum tax. All these good things can happen if politicians simply limit annual spending growth to 2 percent each year. And they’ll happen even faster if spending grows at an even slower rate.

    This debunks the statist argument that there is no choice but to raise taxes.

    Here’s a chart from the video that shows the basic math. Revenues are expected to grow by about 7 percent each year (and that’s with all the tax cuts made permanent. Reducing the deficit therefore is simply a matter of limiting federal spending so that it grows by less than 7 percent each year.

    The video shows three options – a spending freeze, a 1 percent limit on annual spending growth, and a 2 percent limit on annual spending growth. In an ideal world, of course, we would actually reduce spending.

  13. TexasChem says:

    BlackFlag Stated:”That is very surprising to me that it takes a monumental undertaking to establish a principle of government which matches your core.”

    TC:That’s not what you asked.You asked…and I quote:”Define the features of your Republic is a way that avoids your complaint.”

    But, since you asked another question; specifically: “establish a principle of government which matches your core.”Here it is.

    A principle of government which matches my core would be FUNDAMENTAL GOD GIVEN RIGHTS (LIFE, LIBERTY, OWNERSHIP, SELF DEFENSE, FAMILY, FREEDOM) ARE SUPERIOR TO ALL EARTHLY LAW AND SHOULD BE SECURED BY A CITIZENSHIP COVENANT DOCUMENT THAT IS ACCEPTED BY UNANIMOUS CONSENT AND NEVER MADE SUBJECT TO MAJORITY RULE.

    Satisfied?

    • Tex,

      A principle of government which matches my core would be FUNDAMENTAL GOD GIVEN RIGHTS (LIFE, LIBERTY, OWNERSHIP, SELF DEFENSE, FAMILY, FREEDOM) ARE SUPERIOR TO ALL EARTHLY LAW AND SHOULD BE SECURED BY A CITIZENSHIP COVENANT DOCUMENT THAT IS ACCEPTED BY UNANIMOUS CONSENT AND NEVER MADE SUBJECT TO MAJORITY RULE.

      Ok, please explain how a government can exist while adhering to these demands.

      You prohibit government from enforcing itself – that is, it could not prevent a competitive government from rising up.

      • TexasChem says:

        BF Stated:”Ok, please explain how a government can exist while adhering to these demands.

        You prohibit government from enforcing itself – that is, it could not prevent a competitive government from rising up.”

        TC:Perhaps your definition and understanding of government cannot exist under those requirements, but, mine can!

        The government doesn’t have to enforce itself upon anything BlackFlag nor need to prevent another government if all that are governed are in agreement with its policies.

  14. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    We interrupt the daily thread to bring you this:

    Gold $1340.00
    Silver $22.73

    • The slow down over the last couple of days was due to the Indian market recoiling from the high price. They resisted a price of 19,000 rupees.

      However, as predicted, the market would reset to this new baseline and continue to climb.

      It will continue to climb at least into November – high season for Indian purchases.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        You know that the “economics” as we know it are hopelessly screwed up when the only reasons that the stock market is rising is that the Dollar and other fiat currencies are being DEVALUED.

        Beware of the current (and significant) rally in the stock market. It is VERY likely that it is going to been seen by history as the biggest sucker’s rally of all time.

        If you make significant profits in the stock market by about mid-October, I would highly recommend booking those profits and significantly diversifying AWAY from stocks at that point.

        If you are not really in the stock market at this point, I would stay the hell away from it, it is about to be a toxic waste dump after the elections are over; REGARDLESS of who “wins”.

        You stand (or sit) warned.

  15. Good Afternoon 🙂 Another rainy day here in North Western PA 😦

    What a good candidate could work to accomplish:

    1. Cut government agencies by 50%
    2. Eliminate the bad agencies, eg. FDA, Dept of ED, Homeland security (it’s a joke) Dept of the Interior to name a few.
    3. No New Laws. We have too many already.
    4. Fix Social Security and Medicare so that it’s properly funded.
    5. Deport all illegal aliens, secure the border and establish policies that keep it that way.
    6. Cut foriegn aid by 90%
    7. Eliminate the deficit and keep it that way.
    8. Be an American President, not a Democrat or Republican. No campaigning for other Candidates.
    9. All Presidentail campaigns be limited to 3 months. Two years of this crap is mind numbing.
    10. No lobbyists, since we won’t make any new laws, they are not needed.
    11. No wars unless directly attacked.
    12. Bring our troops home, all of them. They are for defending our country, not the rest of the world.
    13. Legalize pot.

    That’s a few, I’ll work on some more.

    G!

    • Added:

      14. Change all laws, taxes and trade agreements that would allow for the “re-industrialization” of America.
      15. Leave the UN and NATO. We don’t need them, they need us.

    • G-Man,

      The Fantasy candidate (and that is because no one would get elected on this platform) would simply have one and only one item:

      “End Income tax”

      • Flag,

        OK, She’s 5’2″, natural blond with big hooters. AND, she wants to end income tax. Now that there is a fantasy candidate! 🙂

  16. Ray Hawkins says:

    Good afternoon to all – been a while…..

    I’m assuming a candidate in general versus POTUS only……

    (1) You are roughly between the ages of 35 and 55
    (2) Man or woman not important
    (3) Gay, straight – does not matter
    (4) You are educated, prefer a mix of public school with some homeschooling
    (5) You have lived in both rural and urban areas, you have lived in different areas of the Country (e.g. North and South)
    (6) You are college educated, prefer a Bachelors and later in life, maybe a Masters Degree
    (7) You have traveled beyond our borders
    (8) You have volunteered for something in your life
    (9) Your personal papers, writings, speeches, whatever are wide open for all to see
    (10) You are in good health
    (11) You do not have a squeaky clean record (but what blemish/blemishes you do have are not too severe)
    (12) You are an atheist or at least agnostic
    (13) You have served in the military of have a close friend/family member who has
    (14) You can show consistent success at something in life (5+ years of…..business…..athletic accomplishment….something)
    (15) You are relatively impatient and willing to try new things
    (16) You have children
    (17) You appreciate art, but you relish math, science, logic
    (18) You are culturally aware
    (19) You are a listener, but will act on instinct
    (20) You don’t give a shit if your decisions are unpopular and you’re willing to be single-term if it means sticking to decisions

    Rather random but the question sparked some thought.

    Thanks

    • TexasChem says:

      I liked all but #3,#12 and #5.

      Not to rehash an old arguement here but #3 is not a fundamentally sound positive social premise.
      Example:
      A)Barney Frank: do I really need to go into his exploits?
      B)Kevin Jennings: Obamas Safe School Czar that wrote a foreword to a book in 1999 that called for elementary school children to explore their sexual identities and for teachers to incorporate homosexual themes in grades K-5.Queering Education I believe the book was called.Jennings also openly praised praised an advocate of pedophilia Harry Hay who is an outspoken proponent of NAMBLA.

      #12 in my opinion would be discriminating against a person from an opposing view of the existence of God.An atheist cannot physically prove their is no God, just as a believer cannot physically prove their is a God.Plus you would be disallowing 70% of the population of the US from running for office!

      #5 I do not believe it right to not allow someone to hold office that has only lived in one area their entire life.

      • Ray Hawkins says:
      • Ray Hawkins says:

        @TexasChem – thanks for the reply (btw – how is the lifting program going?)

        More perspective on my list:

        #3 – one’s sexual orientation, in so far as I have read, is not positively correlated to one’s ability to lead or govern. I care not what one does in the privacy of their bedroom, or whom they hold hands with in public, or who they share a kiss with. I also acknowledge we’re a country with a large portion of the population that sees homosexuality as vile, disgusting, and unnatural. My point is merely it does not matter to me – that’s all. How many people thought Rock Hudson to be less a man when late in his life it was revealed he was gay (at least publicly). Most folks on the right I ask this question of don’t have an answer – when you picture your most favorite all time conservative (I dunno – Reagan? Goldwater? Whomever) who do you see? Now picture Reagan (or whomever) revealing that he was gay. Would that have made him less a leader in your eyes? Do you have to all of a sudden place those warm embraces with foreign leaders in a different light now? My guess is no – but its your call.

        #12 – my position on this is not in proving or disproving a God – it is merely in removing it from the debate and the decision making. A leader is likely to be less objective on matters involving religion if they have a strong religious upbringing and background – many decisions one must make as a leader require a dispassionate voice that at times would seem to run contradictory to what they learn in the Church.

        #5 – my position on this is that I want someone who has seen America, lived it, experienced it in more than one flavor. One runs the risk of a more narrow view (and thus limited decision making ability) if they have lived in one community their entire lives.

        Thanks again.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Coincidentally on #12, not sure if anyone else here saw the results of that study on Americans’ knowledge of religion in general and religious life in America in particular — basically atheists and agnostics knew the most about religion and religious life.

          A leader of the atheist movement in America was quoted (paraphrased here) as saying that is not surprising in the least since it is knowledge of religion that makes an atheist.

          • Per another article-I will go look for it 🙂 Stated another statistic of the study which the atheist choose to leave out-that atheist’s knew more about religions-but Protestants knew more about Christianity-the religion they actually follow-Obviously a slant was intended by leaving out this part of the study.

            • “On questions about the Bible and Christianity, the groups that answered the most right were Mormons and white evangelical Protestants.”

              http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/us/28religion.html?_r=1

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Thanks for pulling that up. I stand corrected on that one point.

              • Not your fault 🙂 -every other article I read didn’t bother to give that statistic.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Still find the overall results interesting (though also unsurprising).

              • Interesting yes-surprising no-why it isn’t surprising-I suspect our suppositions on the why would be different-if one is trying to prove that all religion is just superstitious garbage-they would tend to study all religions.

                But what I find truly interesting-is how did a discussion about the prefect candidate -turn into a discussion about God. 🙂

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Only at SUFA

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Actually if I remember correctly overall atheists knew more about religions than both followers and non-followers of that religion. Perhaps that was the exception though? Would have to look it up again.

    • I take issue with 6, 12, and 16. 16 I understand as a preference, but I do not think it should be a requirement. I understand all of this list to be the “ideal” makeup of a candidate for you, and I do not have that much issue with that. But the state of our colleges makes me question the wisdom of granting preference to a degreed person. The belief in a god is wholly irrelevant to me. If you are an honorable person who places reason above emotion, then you are fine, regardless of who you pray to or don’t pray to.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        @Jon – “But the state of our colleges makes me question the wisdom of granting preference to a degreed person.”

        A rather broad sweeping indictment I would add – my preference for someone with a degree at least offers nominally that they have made an attempt to further educate themselves and they had the discipline to engage in and complete a program. My corollary would be that they are also lifelong learners – I’ll scrub needing a degree if you show you’re well read and you continually challenge what is between your ears.

        My preference on kids is that I want an elected official who has to face a little one each and every day and know that what they are doing will impact them. Not that the clowns now give a shit but they are not who this is addressed to.

    • TexasChem says:

      Have to go back to #3 since I’m a bit biased towards leaning towards their being a creator! 🙂

      Let’s talk about the Big Bang theory.
      I think it embarrassingly unscientific to speak of anything creating itself from nothing.Common sense says that if something possessed the ability to create itself from nothing, then that something wasn’t nothing; it was something – a very intelligent creative power of some sort!

      If the answer to the question “What created the universe?” is the laws of physics.Then what created the laws of physics? How is it that these strange and powerful laws, and these laws alone, apply to the Universe?

      To say that the spontaneous self-creation of the universe out of nothing is evidence that a creator was not involved is a purely theological statement in and of itself.It certainly does not adhere to the scientific method of proof!

      To answer why our universe created itself the way it did is beyond science today.To say that it did so spontaneously is not an answer: It’s an excuse for an answer!

      To deny the existence of a transcendental creator is just as much an act of faith by the atheist as it is a believer in God to affirm it.

      • Tex

        Let’s talk about the Big Bang theory.
        I think it embarrassingly unscientific to speak of anything creating itself from nothing

        But — somehow — it is far less bizarre to believe some “thing” has always existed without a beginning and you call that “God”.

        Common sense says that if something possessed the ability to create itself from nothing, then that something wasn’t nothing; it was something – a very intelligent creative power of some sort!

        Common sense says that something can’t exist without a beginning, but that is the core to your belief system.

        If the answer to the question “What created the universe?” is the laws of physics.

        Close enough…

        Then what created the laws of physics?

        The question is nonsense, that is “it makes no sense to ask”.

        We have no means within the Universe to know about things before the Universe.

        It is as valid to say “It was sex between green leprechauns and red dragons” as anything else you may wish to suppose.

        How is it that these strange and powerful laws, and these laws alone, apply to the Universe?

        Because they do – and that is the best we will ever say about it.

        To say that the spontaneous self-creation of the universe out of nothing is evidence that a creator was not involved is a purely theological statement in and of itself.

        No.

        What is specifically said but widely misunderstood.

        There is no requirement for the existence of “something” before the existence of the Universe.

        It certainly does not adhere to the scientific method of proof!

        Yes it does.

        There is no scientific experiment capable of discerning what was before what is regarding the Universe, thus science does not offer any comment – it is no sense

        But religion knows no such boundary as it is irrational.

        To answer why our universe created itself the way it did is beyond science today.

        …beyond science today.

        To say that it did so spontaneously is not an answer: It’s an excuse for an answer!

        To say that something always existed without a beginning is as equally a Non-answer.

        Neither of these answers come from science however.

        To deny the existence of a transcendental creator is just as much an act of faith by the atheist as it is a believer in God to affirm it.

        Correct and neither exist in the realm of science.

        Science simply says “the Universe does not require a creator to exist“

        • Seems a might off topic-but all 4 of these questions make interesting reading if one wants to take the time 🙂

          http://www.mychurch.org/blog/185972/Atheists-Question-4-Why-does-the-Bible-contain-so-much-anti-scientific-nonsense

          • V.H.

            So let’s go through this muck together….

            You know how science works. Yes, but I also know that how it works is not always how the general public (our atheist included, I’m afraid) may think it works.

            So, there is a way science works, but it is not the way science works…. eeek!

            People have this glamorized idea that SCIENCE is moving one step at a time toward TOTAL UNDERSTANDING, that it is a supremely logical, dispassionate process of removing our blinders so that we can see and know all in the universe.

            Yes, there may be people who believe this is science.

            They think it is untainted by emotion, religion, bias, or politics; it is a pure pursuit of TRUTH.

            It is.

            But the argument here is irrelevant.

            Science is “X”.

            She is arguing, well people aren’t doing “X” but calling it “science” so Science is not “X”.

            She is altering the definition and meaning whimsically to suit her argument at any point in time.

            Science is the methodology of understanding the Universe.
            “…is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the natural world“.

            And there is the key – testable.

            If you cannot derive some sort of test, it isn’t a science.

            Thus, science is not religion – there is feasible test for God or any such belief.

            (1) Science does not work to methodically uncover all possible knowledge. Science only pursues answers to the questions that scientists think to ask!

            Duh.
            We only ask question that ponder us….! Gee what self-evident brilliance!

            Further, science never holds such a demand to uncover all possible knowledge, so claiming this is its goal and then arguing it can’t accomplish this goal is a strawman.

            Because the questions people think to ask derive from their beliefs and assumptions about the universe. People who discount God from the beginning will not look for evidence that He may exist. We will see more about this shortly.

            This is HER misunderstanding of science.

            Science does not seek God because there exists no EXPERIMENT to prove it.

            My main purpose for highlighting this is to remind us that Science is not some great infallible logic machine which cannot be questioned.

            But that is not what science does.

            Science questions.

            This is science…:
            “Whoa! I didn’t expect that – I wonder why?”

            (3) Every scientist starts with assumptions.

            True, called an “hypothesis”

            Some scientists ASSUME there is no God.

            Any scientist who ASSUMES a god is not using science.

            They have not proven it–they assume it!

            They cannot prove it, there is no means – therefore they do not assume it

            Other scientists ASSUME there is a God! Really!

            There are scientists who believe in God, but they are in error to use science to prove or disprove such a belief as it is cannot be done.

            The scientific process is one of testing ideas under repeatable conditions,

            ‘Round and ’round she goes and hits the right answer.

            There is no way this process can demonstrate (or not) the existence of a being from inside the universe that -by definition- exists outside of the universe.

            That would be a contradiction if it did, and the Universe prohibits absolutely all contradictions.

            You happily use the products of science every day: -Your car -Your cell phone -Your microwave oven -Your tv -Your computer These are all products of the scientific process.

            This is not accurate.

            All of those things are due to engineering.

            All the science knowledge in the Universe, but no engineering gives no tools. (But one hellva an advantage at Trivial Pursuit!).

            Because there’s been so much oil for so long! With rare exceptions, fuel from petroleum has been plentiful and cheap, so there haven’t been that many (relatively speaking) people actively pursuing other ways to move automobiles (they haven’t been asking that question!).

            Dangerous oversimplification.

            We use oil because it is the most effective fuel source we have.

            If we had actually run out of petroleum, say twenty years ago, you can be sure that science would have aggressively pursued alternative solutions and would in all likelihood have developed at least one which would have taken over the auto market.

            She confuses scientific progress with economics (*sigh*)

            >Why do particles have a spin?

            Because gravity exists.

            >Why does the strong nuclear force exist?

            Because electro-magnetic force exists.

            >How does one particle attract another?

            Because of an exchange of gravity particles.

            we are going to reach the ends of scientific knowledge.

            True – science is not end but a means on a journey that is infinite.

            In the end, a scientist will reach a point where the only answer to certain questions is, “that’s just the way the universe is.”

            Correct.

            Godel already pointed this out in his theory of Incompleteness.

            A set of all things cannot contain itself and remain consistent.

            They believe this because, ASSUMING there was no God behind human consciousness, what other choice do they have?

            Oh, about an infinite of other explanations and hypothesis.

            So far the best one I have seen is that the human brain is a massive quantum engine, which both is influenced and can influence quantum outcomes.

            that no amount of complexity will allow dead matter with no will, sensations, or emotions to become conscious, aware of self and the world around, with thoughts and feelings.

            Complexity is unnecessary.

            A simple, four-line recursive application can create an infinitely complex fractal – it is the nature of Chaos.

            Nothing in the human mind or experience exceeds the understanding of Chaos theory and infinitely complex organization.

            A failure of articulation does not create a God.

            to maintain their philosophical stronghold in educating the next generation of potential atheists.

            So she leaves science completely and enters into a debate of politic action and a battle of between theologies.

            So much for the “science” argument…

            I am tempted to leave that statement where it is because this post is already going to be very long, but if I were reading this I would demand support for such a brash statement. I’ll give just one example here. Nineteenth century German biologist Ernst Haeckel drew examples of embryonic development which compared fish, salamander, tortoise, chicken, hog, calf, rabbit, and human embryos. Without going into too much detail here, the similarities demonstrated in the embryos was taken to be evidence of evolution’s path to higher-order animals. The drawings were exposed in the late 1860s, when his colleagues accused him of fraud. He had exaggerated the similarity of the embryos in his drawings to bolster his argument. So the drawings were no longer used in reputable textbooks, right? Wrong. Over a hundred years later, the Haeckel drawings were still convincing students that evidence for evolution was to be seen in embryonic development.

            This is a factual complaint – but does not dispute the scientific method nor prove God.

            It demonstrates the power of politics as an infection in human society.

            As an educated person, you know that the Bible contains all sorts of information that is total nonsense from a scientific perspective. Um, no. I don’t know that. Whatever could our atheist be talking about?

            Because there exists a political distortion “over here” does not prove a myth and fantasy “over there”.

            Yet here, he assumes that there is no God to make his case.

            Correct. The Universe does not require a God to exist

            Declaring that a God is required is irrational

            Declaring that a God cannot exist is equally irrational as it cannot be proven

            Thus, science does not say either.

            Now, as to our atheist’s assertion that God creating the world in 6 days 6000 years ago is total nonsense from a scientific perspective,

            Correct.

            “No sense”.

            I think we should look closer. First of all, if we haven’t already clarified the following point, let me state it simply: even if science can’t verify something, that does not automatically determine that it’s nonsense.

            If science cannot prove something then it is “no sense”.

            Love, beauty, consciousness, each of these can be touched on, but not fully explained by science.

            “Fully” explained is not a requirement.

            So EVEN IF a creative God is total nonsense FROM A SCIENTIFIC PERSPECTIVE, that doesn’t make it nonsense in every way.

            We do not care about “every way”. A human can believe in any irrational idea as they may wish. This is not the debate.

            The debate is: There is no God required for the Universe to exist

            The fact is, however, a creator God actually fits the scientific data quite well.

            “Fact” cannot exist in this context – it is a completely irrational statement here.

            Let’s just say that if there is a God of limitless wisdom and power, then He could create the world in 6 seconds, 6 days, 6 years, 6000 years, 600,000,000,000 years, or whatever He chose.

            Gosh, let’s just say time doesn’t exist for God and end the question right there.

            Still, the science that he wants so badly for us to adhere to does point to creation, whatever form it took.

            Correct.

            “Science” started the moment the Universe started.

            Nothing can be known about anything before that time because time did not exist before Universe either.

            So question about “before the Universe” are irrational and “no sense”.

            First of all, it’s worth noting some ways in which evolution–the idea that all living creatures are modified descendents of a common ancestor that lived long ago–has failed to explain the data which science has provided.

            Correct. There are more questions then answers.

            But that does not invalidate the answers we do have.

            Like Newton, who offered his laws of motion. It did not explain certain motion of some distant stars.

            We now know that the Theory of Relativity does explain this. But this does not make Newton wrong, nor his laws of motion. We say Newton’s laws were incomplete and with the additional Law of Relativity, the laws of motion are far better understood.

            No naturalistic model exists for how the first cell could have come into existence; random chance, chemical affinity, self-ordering tendencies, and other ideas all come up short.

            Actually, they do not. Self-ordering chaos has demonstrated by experiment the spontaneous start of “life”.

            No mixing by a myth required.

            The Cambrian explosion (many of the phyla of the animal kingdom “suddenly” appearing in the fossil record) stymies any explanation short of an intelligent force at work.

            Because a rapid explanation is not forthcoming does not prove intelligent design.

            Her argument here:
            “Until science explains it, it must be God doing it. As soon as science explains it, God doesn’t do it.
            .

            The fossil record, in fact, has provided NONE of the transitional forms that gradual evolution requires.

            This is generally acknowledged, however, many hypothesis exist to offer scientific study and test which do not require the “fickle finger of God” to exist.

            Modern cosmologists now agree that the universe had a beginning. Predictions based on the Big Bang theory have been consistently verified by scientific data. The Steady State model and the Oscillating model, even Stephen Hawking’s best attempts fail to explain away the data which lead to the conclusion that there was no universe, and then there was one.

            No, not quite.

            Predictions on the Big Bang have also failed to explain some phenomena. We have quasars, according to Hubble’s Law (which is core to the proof of Big Bang) are speeding away greater than the speed of light. Obviously, the runs contradictory to the theory of Relativity.

            So, something else

            Either Hubble is wrong or Einstein is wrong. (or both are incomplete).

            But God is unnecessary.

            Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

            This is the first cause argument.

            The universe had a beginning.

            Then God had a beginning too. Opps, can’t be God then….

            Therefore the universe has a cause,

            Therefore God had a cause. Opps, can’t be God then….

            and that cause of space and time must be “an uncaused, beginningless, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, personal being endowed with freedom of will and enormous power.”

            No sense.

            If one argues all things need a cause then argues this thing needs no cause the argument is called:

            Contradiction – and that -for sure- cannot exist if the Universe is rational

            The study of physics provides further evidence for a creator. The universe has many physical constants that are extremely fine-tuned such that minute changes would render life impossible.

            So?

            The Universe is a very big, and very old thing. Things that are thought to be “impossible” are not really such in the scheme of things.

            A close example: if you are 1 in a million (pretty darn rare), there are 1,500 of you in China (pretty darn not rare).

            So life being rare is not a big deal. Obviously, it is not rare on the Earth, just like 1 in a million is not rare in China.

            Taken together, these numbers (and others in the mix) lead scientists to conclude that the universe did not come together by chance.

            Nonsense.

            Large numbers and small numbers always confuse people who do not understand numbers.

            The reactions of neutrons in a nucleus happen on timescales that are theoretically small. The pulse of the mass increase and decrease happens so fast pretty much nothing in the Universe can measure them.

            That does not mean God is required to keep time.

            Astronomy also points to a creator. “Earth’s location, its size, its composition, its structure, its atmosphere, its temperature, its internal dynamics, and its many intricate cycles that are essential to life–the carbon cycle, the oxygen cycle, the nitrogen cycle, the phosphorous cycle, the sulfur cycle, the calcium cycle, the sodium cycle, and so on–testify to the degree to which our planet is exquisitely and precariously balanced.”

            Nonsense.

            The Earth is highly robust and self-evidently so. It operates on large natural negative feedback loops – indeed, it would be impossible to stop life on Earth baring the total loss of the Sun.

            Make a point that Earth is “lucky”, I point to the fact that the Universe is unimaginably huge and old, and if it wasn’t “here”, it would be and is a whole lot of other places right now.

            Heck we found one “close by” already….

            Still need more evidence of a Creator?

            Well, so far none has been presented….

            Over a hundred years ago, scientists might not think they needed God to explain the universe, but increasingly as our knowledge grows, the existence of an intelligent, personal, powerful Creator is inescapable.

            Nonsense – such a belief only exists where humans ignorance and wonder meet.

            And science is not mesmerized by wonder.

            -There was never a worldwide flood that covered Mt. Everest like the Bible says.

            The “Great flood” myth predates the Bible by a thousand years – it is written in the poem of Gilgamesh – one of the oldest written works in human history.

            Science offers a number of explanations, including the great inland sea in North America breaking out of its ice cage and flooding the Atlantic – causing a sudden rise in the ocean level by 20 to 30 feet. This hypothesis also explains the short return of an ice age during the interglacial period called Younger Dryas stadial, also referred to as the Big Freeze

            Therefore, he concludes supernatural Judgment is a myth.

            Worse than that, it is theologically contradictory!

            Why would a God care if a God is omnipotent?

            These stories are all nonsense.

            Yep, both on a scientific and a theological level.

            Why would an all-knowing God write nonsense?

            Why would God need to write? If He was all powerful, why didn’t he give Peter a computer to write?

            Heck, even that must be small stuff for an all-powerful God – why didn’t God just embed on our foreheads?

            Heck, why does an all-powerful God have to play games of hide-and-seek?

            None of this makes any sense….

            • I’m not ignoring your post BF-I am thinking about your response-I will say a couple things at this point though-you are making a pretty big deal out of the definition of science, which I don’t think anyone was arguing about. The point was that through man science can be effected because personal assumptions can effect the conclusions that are drawn and the questions that are asked. Second-you say God cannot be proven by science-I had an hypothesis that Christ existed-I tested that hypothesis by saying a prayer-Result-I had a salvation experience-Conclusion -God exists. Many other people have had this same hypothesis-tested it and come to the same conclusion. I have to wonder if the fact of God’s existence is unprovable by science or if the test parameters are just impossible to recreate on demand. I do see that we agree that science cannot disprove God’s existence, although many people try to say that it can. You simply seem to feel any reasoning that points towards a God is irrelevant because it can’t be proven.

              • V.H.

                I’m not ignoring your post BF-I am thinking about your response-I will say a couple things at this point though-you are making a pretty big deal out of the definition of science, which I don’t think anyone was arguing about.

                It is very important.

                To claim “science” does this or proves that – is core to understand science or you get into the mess that the above author falls into.

                There is much wonder in the Universe – it is unimaginable to grasp by anyone.

                But that wonder does not dispute that it is the Universe, it has immutable natural law that are all self-consistent without the need of something to make it so.

                I have, in the past, argued mathematically and axiomatically for the existence of a God, but I cannot argue the same scientifically.

                I hope you understand the differences.

                The point was that through man science can be effected because personal assumptions can effect the conclusions that are drawn and the questions that are asked.

                This may be true, humans are human and are subjective.

                Second-you say God cannot be proven by science-I had an hypothesis that Christ existed

                If you define a man to be God, you don’t have to go very far for your proof.

                -I tested that hypothesis by saying a prayer-

                A ship sunk and 75 people survived out of 175. Many said it was because they prayed.

                But what of the 100 that died? Many of them prayed too.

                Prayers are not a scientific test for they fail repeatability

                Result-I had a salvation experience-Conclusion -God exists.

                I make the same arguments about leprechauns and red dragons, but you would laugh at me.

                Yet the argument is the same, so why would you laugh?

                Many other people have had this same hypothesis-tested it and come to the same conclusion.

                Prove it by science. It cannot be done.

                I have to wonder if the fact of God’s existence is unprovable by science or if the test parameters are just impossible to recreate on demand.

                ..unprovable…impossible…

                Ergo, not science.

                I do see that we agree that science cannot disprove God’s existence, although many people try to say that it can.

                There is another school of thought that states that unless an experiment can be created to prove an hypothesis, the hypothesis must be false.

                They have a large following and many compelling arguments for their position.

                You simply seem to feel any reasoning that points towards a God is irrelevant because it can’t be proven.

                If it cannot be proven, reason is a worthless tool.

              • If your point is that God can’t be absolutely proven by science-I don’t really disagree with you-but I do believe that reasonable arguments can be made from science to point to the possibility of God. As far as mathematically and axiomatically -math-not even a little-axiom-other than the words self evident-which I figure is far from that simple-I know nothing-but I do know God-think me crazy if you must 🙂 Talk to you tomorrow-must go to bed now.

              • V.H.

                Not quite this

                not absolutely proven by science

                But this:
                science absolutely cannot prove or disprove God

              • Black Flag

                I do believe that reasonable arguments can be made from science to point to the possibility of God.

                IF such arguments exist, they would equally point to the possibility of leprechauns and flying fire breathing red dragons, and everything else imaginary, mythical, fantasy and irrational, too

                Such is irrationality – nothing makes sense.

                think me crazy

                Not at all.

                The irony is: dogs and cats do not know anything to ponder the questions of faith.

                Only intelligent beings ask “I wonder why?”

                And only beings who ask “I wonder why?” can possibly create the myth of a God/Creator – for when the why cannot be answered, an answer that appears to answer all questions appears, right or wrong.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          Flag – so what think of you if life is eventually discovered on Gliese 581G (or similar)? Do we need to reconvene Nicaea and see if we left out some ‘books’ that reference life elsewhere? Should be interesting….. 😉

          • Ray,

            Yes, it will be rather inconvenient.

            But I’m sure they will come up with another myth to cover that – like “The lost tribe of Israel” or some such – picked up by aliens and deposited there.

            Or maybe an “angel” story….

            But “they” will satisfy themselves just fine.

        • TexasChem says:

          BF Stated:”But — somehow — it is far less bizarre to believe some “thing” has always existed without a beginning and you call that “God”.”

          TC:I don’t even pretend to know the order nor time-frame of a being capable of creating the Universe.There very well may be multiple intelligences in the Universe that could possibly be millions of years old.

          Mankinds knowledge would be just a drop in the bucket to intelligences such as that.They could be working along-side and within the will of some Divine Creator for all I know to help raise Man up out of the muck.

          Could we already have references to these races in recorded history?(Cherubim,Seraphim,Ophanim)Beliefs and references to “angels” are surprisingly consistent across many cultures and religions.Also consistent is the fact that the purpose of all major surviving religions is the betterment of mankind through increasing his humanity and morality.From Buddhism to Zoroastrianism and everything in-between there are references to “angels” and various fiery chariots,Vimanas,floating cities and other flying devices throughout ancient history.How would a man view a Harrier jet landing 3,000 years ago?Mesopotamian history is very fascinating if you ever take the time to research it.

          Mans fossil record dates back to 160,000 to 190,000 years ago for our species and yet we regularly find fossil evidence of pre-historic life that dates back millions of years ago.We have no fossil record of an ancestor that evolved from other terestrial primates.In fact we have no record of missing links between any species at all!

          There is geological evidence for there being a great flood at one time upon the earth.If true could this have been some feat purposefully orchestrated by an advanced race to make the Earth more user friendly for man to become an intelligent civilized race?I mean it would be fairly difficult to make any technological accomplishments with a T-Rex chasing you every time you left your cave shelter for food wouldn’t it?

          Man is the only primate on Earth with 46 chromosomes while the other evolved primates have 48.Could an advanced race have dabbled with DNA in some manner to create Man?Does this negate the fact that there could be some Divine Creator that influenced this act?No.

          I do not believe in an invisible man in the sky BlackFlag.I do believe the Creator to have actual substance and exist and have purpose for Man and itself even if that purpose is just to be.I do not think Man nor any of the religions of this world contain all the knowledge to explain our existence but I do believe that one day Mankind will have that knowledge.

          BlackFlag Stated:”The question is nonsense, that is “it makes no sense to ask”.

          TC:You take the cowardly non-thinking mans way out then?

          BlackFlag Stated:”We have no means within the Universe to know about things before the Universe.”

          TC:CURRENTLY we have no means.

          BlackFlag Stated:”Because they do – and that is the best we will ever say about it.

          TC:Nonsense we are still making leaps and bounds in technological advancement.200 years ago our main mode of transportation was on an animal BlackFlag.

          BlackFlag Stated:”There is no scientific experiment capable of discerning what was before what is regarding the Universe, thus science does not offer any comment – it is no sense”

          TC:Hogwash BF.To question the reason and existence of things allows for the acquisition of knowledge through various means of discovery.

          BF STATED:”But religion knows no such boundary as it is irrational.”

          TC:If you do not understand a thing it may very well seem irrational to you.

          BF STated:”Science simply says “the Universe does not require a creator to exist“

          TC:No sir it does not say nor prove that.That is purely conjecture on your part with absolutely no proof what-so-ever!

          • Tex,

            TC:I don’t even pretend to know the order nor time-frame of a being capable of creating the Universe.There very well may be multiple intelligences in the Universe that could possibly be millions of years old.

            Or it could just be leprechauns and red dragons mating.

            Mankinds knowledge would be just a drop in the bucket to intelligences such as that.

            Or “they” are mindless sex creatures.

            They could be working along-side and within the will of some Divine Creator for all I know to help raise Man up out of the muck.

            But if such a “thing” is all powerful, why not just “do it”? Why the game?

            It makes no sense.

            Could we already have references to these races in recorded history?(Cherubim,Seraphim,Ophanim)Beliefs and references to “angels” are surprisingly consistent across many cultures and religions.

            Yeah, numerous books explain these as space aliens too. I’m more inclined to believe that then the “fickle finger of God”.

            Also consistent is the fact that the purpose of all major surviving religions is the betterment of mankind through increasing his humanity and morality.

            Arguable – but has no bearing to existence of God.

            From Buddhism to Zoroastrianism and everything in-between there are references to “angels” and various fiery chariots,Vimanas,floating cities and other flying devices throughout ancient history.How would a man view a Harrier jet landing 3,000 years ago?

            Because space aliens from another world came here.

            Lookup”
            “War of the Gods”

            Mesopotamian history is very fascinating if you ever take the time to research it.

            I have detailed files.

            Mans fossil record dates back to 160,000 to 190,000 years ago for our species and yet we regularly find fossil evidence of pre-historic life that dates back millions of years ago.We have no fossil record of an ancestor that evolved from other terestrial primates.

            So?

            Do you know how long ago that was?

            Do you know how much glaciation has come and gone? Glaciers carve out mountains out of valleys and you thing a few thousand bones are gonna survive??

            In fact we have no record of missing links between any species at all!

            Not true. We have many examples – some better than others.

            There is geological evidence for there being a great flood at one time upon the earth.

            Yep, the Younger Dryas stadial – where the great inland sea in North America broke out of the ice cage and flooded the Atlantic.

            It’s a fair hypothesis.

            If true could this have been some feat purposefully orchestrated by an advanced race to make the Earth more user friendly for man to become an intelligent civilized race?

            I would believe that sooner than a “God”.

            I mean it would be fairly difficult to make any technological accomplishments with a T-Rex chasing you every time you left your cave shelter for food wouldn’t it?

            The era of T-rex and the era of mammals are separated by a million years. I’m sure this was not an issue.

            Man is the only primate on Earth with 46 chromosomes while the other evolved primates have 48.

            “We” got hit with a cosmic ray.

            Could an advanced race have dabbled with DNA in some manner to create Man?

            Maybe or maybe a cosmic ray.

            Does this negate the fact that there could be some Divine Creator that influenced this act?No.

            Yes, because such a claim is irrational.

            I can test for aliens
            I can test DNA

            There exists no test for God.

            I do not believe in an invisible man in the sky BlackFlag.I do believe the Creator to have actual substance and exist and have purpose for Man and itself even if that purpose is just to be.

            The Universe exists. Period. Nothing more need to exist for that to exist.

            The Universe may be purposeful but that does not mean there is an intelligence in its operation. Chaos and Quantum mechanics more than explains the self-ordering infinitely complex chaos of nature.

            The Universe appears to convert entropy into exotropy.

            I do not think Man nor any of the religions of this world contain all the knowledge to explain our existence but I do believe that one day Mankind will have that knowledge.

            Then we will be God – but that is impossible.

            BlackFlag Stated:”The question is nonsense, that is “it makes no sense to ask”.

            TC:You take the cowardly non-thinking mans way out then?

            *blink*

            The irrational mind demands a rational response to an irrational question.

            Ok, here it is, between the quotes:
            “”

            BlackFlag Stated:”We have no means within the Universe to know about things before the Universe.”

            TC:CURRENTLY we have no means.

            NEVER have the means.

            BlackFlag Stated:”Because they do – and that is the best we will ever say about it.

            TC:Nonsense we are still making leaps and bounds in technological advancement.200 years ago our main mode of transportation was on an animal

            No amount of technology will prove irrational beliefs.

            BlackFlag.

            BlackFlag Stated:”There is no scientific experiment capable of discerning what was before what is regarding the Universe, thus science does not offer any comment – it is no sense”

            TC:Hogwash

            Nothing IN the Universe can answer questions about OUTSIDE the Universe it is impossible.

            BF.To question the reason and existence of things allows for the acquisition of knowledge through various means of discovery.

            But the Universe OUTSIDE of itself cannot be known INSIDE itself, or it would be INSIDE.

            Thus, nothing OUTSIDE can be known INSIDE.

            BF STATED:”But religion knows no such boundary as it is irrational.”

            TC:If you do not understand a thing it may very well seem irrational to you.

            No, I just say I don’t understand.

            I have no need to make up stories.

            BF STated:”Science simply says “the Universe does not require a creator to exist“

            TC:No sir it does not say nor prove that.

            *cough*
            That is exactly what it says. There exists no method to prove God. It is impossible. Further, everything in the Universe is consistent, thus a God is not required

            Indeed, YOUR God of whimsical manipulation contradicts the Universe

            That is purely conjecture on your part with absolutely no proof what-so-ever!

            Bingo! Because none can ever exist!

            The lack of proof does not create a need for a God, either!

            • TexasChem says:

              BF Stated:”But the Universe OUTSIDE of itself cannot be known INSIDE itself”

              TC:Unless it was known by an entity not bound by that Universes laws.Specifically time.

              • Tex,

                TC:Unless it was known by an entity not bound by that Universes laws.Specifically time.

                Then God would be a contradiction, hence, could not exist in this universe.

            • TexasChem says:

              BF Stated:”The era of T-rex and the era of mammals are separated by a million years. I’m sure this was not an issue.”

              TC:Wow! Really? WTH BF… look at the statement from the point of view of time not being an issue.The world could have been remade purposefully by an intelligence millions of years in advance for the preparation of Man.

            • TexasChem says:

              BF Stated:”But if such a “thing” is all powerful, why not just “do it”? Why the game?

              It makes no sense.”

              TC:It makes no sense to you now and perhaps never will but perhaps it has to do with free will and love.

            • TexasChem says:

              BF Stated:”Not true. We have many examples – some better than others.”

              TC:Post them please.

              • Equestrian species.

              • TexasChem says:

                While you post the best possible case scenario there is still no record of missing links between any equestrian species either.

                I’ll give you an example of a species that was thought to be extinct 65 million years ago but was found in 1938 though.It has not evolved in 65 million years…

                Coelacanth.

              • Tex,

                There is a nice history in the fossil records for horse development.

                Coelacanth – and your point is…life is pervasive?

            • TexasChem says:

              BF Stated:”The Universe exists. Period. Nothing more need to exist for that to exist.
              The Universe may be purposeful but that does not mean there is an intelligence in its operation. Chaos and Quantum mechanics more than explains the self-ordering infinitely complex chaos of nature.”

              TC:And who pray tell told you this?Have leprechauns and red dragons been whispering in your ears?

      • As BF rightly pointed out your logic is flawed from the beginning. Who created God?

        • TexasChem says:

          Perhaps God exists out of time.

          IF two dimensions of time form a plane of time, which has no beginning and no end and is not restricted to any single direction. A being that exists in at least two dimension of time can travel anywhere in time and yet never had a beginning, since a plane of time has no starting point!

          If our Universe is indeed eternal as science suggests and has a beginning and an end then if God is not restricted with time He would be eternal yes?

          • Tex,

            Perhaps God exists out of time.

            Then such an existence is nonsense since the Universe exists in time.

            IF two dimensions of time form a plane of time, which has no beginning and no end and is not restricted to any single direction.

            Explain how “time” – which is a concept of entropy – has a two dimensions?

            This is akin to saying “Red+72 equals 4”

            If our Universe is indeed eternal as science suggests

            Science suggests no such thing.

            and has a beginning and an end then if God is not restricted with time He would be eternal yes?

            If time does not exist, then time is not a measure. Thus a concept of “eternal” which is a matter of time, is nonsense

            • TexasChem says:

              BF STAted:”Then such an existence is nonsense since the Universe exists in time.”

              TC:Exactly my point.If God exists out of time he is not restricted by the Universe nor its laws.

              BF STated:”Explain how “time” – which is a concept of entropy – has two dimensions?

              TC:I was trying to form a visual for people BF.Same as if you look at space as curved vs flat.Duh.

              BF Stated:”Science suggests no such thing.”

              TC:I meant to say non-eternal Universe.You were correct there.My bad!

              If our Universe is indeed non-eternal as science suggests and has a beginning and an end then if God is not restricted with time He would be eternal yes?

              BF Stated:”If time does not exist, then time is not a measure. Thus a concept of “eternal” which is a matter of time, is nonsense”

              TC:I did not say that time does not exist I said that God may not be restricted by time if he is not bound by our Universes laws of time.

              • Tex

                BF STAted:”Then such an existence is nonsense since the Universe exists in time.”

                TC:Exactly my point.If God exists out of time he is not restricted by the Universe nor its laws.

                Or maybe he is – you just don’t know – and will never know so the question is irrational and pointless.

                It goes nowhere.

                You cannot prove anything – ever.

                You can say “God dances a jig every Sunday on the Moon” and (shrug).

                Can’t prove it, can’t disprove it – so “who cares??!?” is the answer!

                Same as if you look at space as curved vs flat.Duh.

                Because “space” has dimensions.

                Time does not. Time is a consequence of the flow of entropy

                If our Universe is indeed non-eternal as science suggests and has a beginning and an end then if God is not restricted with time He would be eternal yes?

                The Universe has a beginning, because we can prove it.

                We do not know if it has an end. It completely depends on the amount of matter.

                If too little, it will expand and essentially grow to a size that even light cannot transverse it. We will end up in the deepest dark you cannot imagine.

                If too much, we will stop, shrink and be compressed into a point so dense it rips all matter and light to beyond smaller than quanta.

                If just right, we will “flow” in myriad of pulses, and reach a “steady state” of mass and energy – swirling infinitely.

                But we don’t know -just yet-

                BF Stated:”If time does not exist, then time is not a measure. Thus a concept of “eternal” which is a matter of time, is nonsense”

                TC:I did not say that time does not exist I said that God may not be restricted by time if he is not bound by our Universes laws of time.

                Thus he is not in this Universe and hence, unnecessary.

              • TexasChem says:

                BF Stated:”Because “space” has dimensions.

                Time does not.”

                TC:Space has 3 known dimensions.Time is known as the 4th dimension.
                According to the string theory the universe has infinite number of dimensions including fractional dimensions this is so at the level planck’s length(10 to the power -23 centimeter) but far above this length the universe is a 4-dimensional spacetime continuum.

              • Tex,

                Time ..4th dimension

                No, it is not.

                A dimension is a 90 angle from the other two.

                It also has -equally- a forward and a back.

                Time is not 90 degrees to anything. It goes “one way” – forward.

                It is a huge conceptual error to assign a dimension to time.

                String theory sits almost at the same point as “God” – it cannot be proven (or disproven). It is as much a “theology” as your dialogues about God, and I hold it at about the same distance away from my nose.

          • Tex,

            If “God” exists “out of time”, so then could the “Universe be “out of time” too! Then *poof* found time and here it is!

            Prove it wrong…..because if you can’t, it must be the truth, right?

      • Bottom Line says:

        Alpha, Omega, beginning, end, blah blah blah…

        It had to start somewhere, with something.

        Where/what is it?

        A: We’ll never know. The concept is just a big tease.

        Thus, this conversation is somewhat pointless.

    • My issue with #12. I do not insist someone be Christian. I think it is a mistake to demand they not be religious. They should be clear that they will not use their political power to force their beliefs on others. Mike Huckabee
      is a good example, pro-life, but did not push his deep religious beliefs on others. Palin might be another. She has strong personal beliefs, but did not try to use her office to mandate her beliefs.

      Obama & Pelosi are the other side. They will mandate their beliefs on others, such as partial birth abortion.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        Wait a sec here — Obama & Pelosi are mandating their beliefs on others by wanting to keep abortion and certain medial procedures legal, thereby enabling women to make their own individual decisions, whereas Palin is not mandating her beliefs on others by trying to outlaw abortion in all instances thereby removing individual choice?

        How did you draw that conclusion?

        • Buck,

          Obama has fought hard for the partial birth abortion, and blocked treatment of a “fetus” born live after such a procedure. It’s in his voting record, including speeches.
          He wants a federal law that mandates this be available nation wide. I think he would also support California law which allows minors to have an abortion done without parental notification. O & P have shown they will mandate us to buy health insurance, and even detail the coverage.

          Palin has expressed her beliefs, but has not once tried to mandate them on others.

          I think CM got where I was going, not about abortion, but about them forcing their wishes on us. How long before they ban sugar and fast food? (Never, they will tax it to death, like smoking) If you like and agree with having someone make decisions for you, we will have to agree to disagree. When I use a doctor or lawyer, I am asking for their professional expertise. I may not do as they advise, my choice! Funny thing, my doctor respects my opinion, and has never tried to force a treatment on me.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Using abortion as an example, solely because I think it provides a good example of where you are going with this – you argue Obama is trying to impose his beliefs on all; I argue he is merely trying to keep the option available to those individuals that choose it.

            I wouldn’t equate this with imposing beliefs. Palin advocates for an end to abortion. This absolutely would have the effect of imposing her beliefs on the rest of us, in the sense that those individuals who would choose to have an abortion would be stopped from doing so.

            On the flip side, it cannot be said that Obama is forcing anyone to do (or keep from doing) anything.

            • Buck

              If you do not purchase insurance you will pay a fine to the IRS.

              MMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm……Obama is not forcing anyone to do anything.

              Obama is pushing for policies to implement his vision of “fundamentally changing America”. A vision shared by the “progressive fascists” for decades. He is using Govt agencies to carry out that vision as we speak. They will impose his/their will upon us in hundreds of ways.

              Palin has said she wishes abortion would disappear, but that she would not use the power of govt to impose that ban upon others. I assume she would support banning use of federal funds for abortion. Which would eliminate the imposition of the pro-abortion people on me by taxing me to perform a procedure I may not agree with.

              So try one more time if you please. Explain again how Mr. Obama is not trying to force us to live according to his beliefs.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                The above was on the issue of abortion.

                Regarding Palin specifically, has she used her office to mandate ‘no abortion’ or make it more difficult for women to obtain one. I don’t know; I’m not very familiar with her record up in Alaska. But she has clearly advocated for and would support a ban on abortion in most (if not all) instances.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        @LOI –

        On Huckabee – not sure I’d give him a free pass that he’d be intent on keeping his personal beliefs to himself: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21880014/ns/politics-decision_08/

        On Palin – its not really clear what the hell she thinks on the issue:

        (From On the Issues dot org)

        Q: Why is Roe v. Wade a bad decision?

        A: I think it should be a states’ issue not a federal government-mandated, mandating yes or no on such an important issue. I’m, in that sense, a federalist, where I believe that states should have more say in the laws of their lands and individual areas. Now, foundationally, it’s no secret that I’m pro-life that I believe in a culture of life is very important for this country. Personally that’s what I would like to see further embraced by America.

        My overall point being perhaps is that I would perceive an atheist or agnostic less likely to inject issues as such into the political arena based on their religious dogma – that does not mean the issue gets no light – just more so that the religious tone of it is removed.

        • Common Man says:

          LOF, Ray, Buck:

          I have no desire to invoke a sideline conversation on abortion, but I think we should each ask ourselves the following question:

          Does another person (regardless of their stature) have the right to deny or invoke a condition on another, without violating that particular individuals enaliable rights?

          It should be noted that there is nothing in the Bill or Rights, Constitution, or Universial Law that states or mandates one way or another. Therefore, isn’t it a violation of those rights if one imposses their wishes on another who does not agree with the others wishes?

          This is no different than me deciding I want to set at home each night and drink a fifth of JD, pass out and wake up with a massive hangover. As long as I don’t endanger another and in affect I am only affecting myself what gives any of you the right to tell me no, or for that matter condone my actions. My business is mine, not yours, and only I am affected.

          We need to start asking ouselves how our decisions or demands are possibly violating the rights of others if we expect to be truely free men and women.

          CM

          • Common Man,

            Therefore, isn’t it a violation of those rights if one imposses their wishes on another who does not agree with the others wishes?

            Are you talking about the mother imposing her wishes on the baby inside her?
            Or you imposing your wishes on the mother?

            Which one is the biggest violation of rights?
            Who has the most and least involved in this situation?

            Can we ascertain the wishes of all parties involved?

            • # Opposed born-alive treatment law because it was already law. (Oct 2008)
              # Supports Roe v. Wade. (Jul 1998)
              # Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
              # Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
              # Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
              # Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)

              Can you guess who this is? What right does a parent have on raising their child?
              What happens when an adult molests a child, and she does not tell her parents?
              Don’t worry, Planned Parenthood will make it all better?

        • Ray,

          Great find! On Huck, I was going by how he acted as our Gov.,
          I would not support him for Pres., bad immigration policies.

          Palin, I really like her answer.

  17. Bottom Line says:

    The problem isn’t necessarily the people in office. The problem is the system itself.

    It’s too big, too permanent, and too complex to expect elected officials to collectively agree on anything and change/fix it. A Constitutional Convention full of hard-core libertarians wouldn’t even suffice. Even if that happened this year, …It’d be too little, too late.

    It needs to be destroyed and rebuilt from the ground up, libertarian style, or not at all(ANARCHY!)

    So, I suggest replacing all the 500 and whatever positions with a bunch of radical Hitler/Mao/BHO types. All hell would break loose, and the system would start to break down in a hurry.

    As it is, the system IS breaking down, just not as fast as it needs to IMHO. It’s gonna take a while.

    Teach future generations how and what to rebuild.

  18. Common Man says:

    Jon;

    #1) I think we should start to transition the government out of business. I’m one that believes that a Free-Market will police itself via it’s consumers; at least for the most part. I also believe that 99.9% of what the government does can be done better by the private sector. (The one exception is the Military, simply because there will always be evil in the world and a nation must be able to protect itself. How the Military is managed and it’s magnitude is another subject for another day.) I would start by removing most of the Federal regulations currently enforced by various government agencies like the FDA, EPA, ATF, IRS, Treasury, OSHA, FTC, etc, etc. This would be a calculated and gradual process that would take a few years.
    #2) Stop any and all Federal Spending – period.
    #3) Cut taxes (all of them) by at least 50%
    #4) Return SS to it’s origanl status – volentary. This would give each and every working person the choice to no longer have that deduction. Same with unemployment insurance. (Now there are a number of other things with SS to address because a great many Americans have been forced to pay into it for 30-40 years. And as such, some of those who have are in a situation that they will need it after 65 or 70 years of age. I’m one that believes that since the government made it manditory for all workers, and then the government exploited the whole program, each worker is entitled to at least what they contributed.)
    #5) Return State rights to the States
    #6) Mandate that the Federal Government conduct itself according to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, at least from the outset of the initial term. I would then examine the Constitution to see where it fails from an individual liberty perspective and work to ammend it accordingly.
    #7) Transition all Military personel out of other countries and back home.
    #8) Close the boarders – period, at least temporarily. I would then work with representatives of the states to develop a program that is fair to all who wish to come to the US to live and WORK; the key adverb here is Work. There would no longer be Social programs to enable illegals. I would also inform the heads of other countries that their people are welcome here as long as they go through the due process. If they arrive illegally each individual will be sent back to their country of origin immediately, regardless of age, sex, or race.
    #9) Open our countries boardering seas to commercial drilling by US based company’s, as well as US lands those company’s can secure legal rights too. At the same time I would make it clear to those oil company’s that they are responsible for any damage or disasters. I would also let company’s that are working on alternative energy’s to continue and let the consumer decide their fate.
    #10) Eliminate the Supreme Court. Let the states decide
    #11) Work to return the US dollar to a Gold standard
    #12) Stop any and all foriegn country grants, bailouts, exploration, etc, etc.
    #13) Develop a Dave Ramsey style budget focusing on elliminating our debt
    #14) Repeal the Healthcare Bill and kill the Cap and Trade Bill from progressing.
    #15) Write an executive order that states that any and all laws mandated by the federal government that violate individual rights as defined by the Bill of Rights, are now and forever abolished.
    #16) Cut every US Representatives salary by 2/3rds if they have more than 3 consecutive terms under their belt. Elliminate their health care plan and retirement pension plan. All existing funds would be returned to the general fund and dispersed at a later date after proper deliberation.
    #17) Unions would have to change their rules. Employers would no longer be forced to use only Union workers, and employees would not be forced to join or pay union dues to work at a particular employer.
    #18) Any and all US Representatives currently seated and convicted of a crime would be impeached.
    #19) Privatise Education and start teaching kids how to learn while focusing on each childs individual passions. I would suggest that employers start schools for their employees kids allowing the parents to establish the criteria and ciriculum.
    #20) Elliminate the Electorial College
    #21) And in conjunction with #1 encourage free enterprise to suggest ideas on how to take over currently government run efforts like the DNR, FDA, EPA, etc, etc.

    That would take up the first 4 years. And let me add that I firmly believe that if we remove the shackles that the government has envoked on individuals/industry/business in general these past 100 years, a free market society would quickly absorb 95% of those able and willing to work; including all the displaced government workers that would eventually be out of a job as a result of all these cuts. This in turn would spark the economy and invoke additional innovation.

    Ray:

    I’m with you on all of them except #4 and #12. Who says you have to have a college education to be a representative; it is not a requirement now, so why should it be down the road? And #12 is discriminating. Just because one believe’s there is a Creator does not mean they would be contemptuous towards those that do not believe.

    CM

    • Common Man,
      Just a few thoughts off the top of my head:

      #6) Mandate that the Federal Government conduct itself according to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, at least from the outset of the initial term. I would then examine the Constitution to see where it fails from an individual liberty perspective and work to ammend it accordingly.

      So, we go back to slavery and only white-males voting?

      #15) Write an executive order that states that any and all laws mandated by the federal government that violate individual rights as defined by the Bill of Rights, are now and forever abolished.

      The Supreme Court has already done this, but I get the feeling you don’t like them. So who decides this?

      #17) Unions would have to change their rules. Employers would no longer be forced to use only Union workers, and employees would not be forced to join or pay union dues to work at a particular employer.

      Sure, we’ll go back to 12 hours a day, 6 days a week, for pennies a day. I’m sure those wonderful “job creators” will give us Sunday’s off, cause they’re all such loving Christians. Unless they see an opportunity to make more money by having us work on Sunday’s too.

      #19) Privatise Education and start teaching kids how to learn while focusing on each childs individual passions. I would suggest that employers start schools for their employees kids allowing the parents to establish the criteria and ciriculum.

      Same as #17…

      #21) And in conjunction with #1 encourage free enterprise to suggest ideas on how to take over currently government run efforts like the DNR, FDA, EPA, etc, etc.

      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39516346/ns/us_news-life/

      No pay, no spray: Firefighters let home burn – Tennessee house in ashes after homeowner ‘forgot’ to pay $75 fee

      Sure, let’s privatize fire protection too. Just don’t forget to pay the “fee”, and the extortion that will eventually follow, or not only will the fire department not put out your fire, but they’ll start setting them just to make a point. Same goes for the police. Sounds like the Mafia or the Mob to me.

      And you better hope you don’t lose your job, cause somewhere you mentioned no unemployment insurance. So if you can’t or don’t pay or your check bounces, too bad.

      And I’ll guarantee insurance premiums in this area are going to sky-rocket. How does the insurer know if you paid the “fee”?

      You need to take a hard look at the unintended consequences of your ideas…

      • Common Man says:

        Todd;

        I don’t believe there is anything in the Constitution that indicates one man can enslave another, as a matter of fact I think it says that “All men are created equal”. And it should be noted that during the time it was written the word “Men” was ment to include all persons. Regardless, modern times coupled with the Bill of Rights allocates those freedoms and rights to all persons; and a rightous man or woman would understand that.

        There are a number of “executive orders” that exist that out right violated both the Bill of rights and human rights. My point is that in a number of cases a number of Presidents violated rights by authoring those executive orders. BTW: I would also recommend that after the executive order abolishing all previous executive orders that violated individual rights, the President write one more; There will no longer be an executive order ability.

        Since the economy will be booming as a result of the other mandates I suggested company’s that mandate “slave driver” hours and conditions will quickly loose their work force, and as result go out of business.

        As for schools, I think that business and children would learn and thrive as a result of vocational schooling. There would be more advancements in technologies, science and industry as a whole. In addition children would learn how to work with others, cope with various “real life” challenges at an earlier stage and parents would take a more positive role in helping to ensure their kids were learning.

        As far as the FDA, DNR, etc they are all just like boat owners; a place to drowned your money.

        As far as fire and police departments, that discussion was had here a day or two ago. As an example of privatising take a look at garbage collection. For the most part it is now handled by private companies and they are more reasonable and efficent. And if they are not you are free to find one who is.

        Although I greatly respect those that serve in both the police and fire department I have choosen to depend upon other alternatives for first response

        CM

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      @CM

      To respond:

      #4 – I answered this with Jon – but let me also offer that because something is or is not a requirement now should not preclude something from being a requirement or preference down the road – otherwise what is the point in this exercise?

      #12 – with respect to this point – the very notion that one can be a solid Christian, Muslim, whatever; is in my opinion at odds with the very nature and requirements of higher offices, specifically POTUS but I allowed this requirement of mine to trickle down (tickle down is always better right?). Ask yourself how one can be a good Christian (e.g. for S&G’s lets say a good Christian follows the Ten Commandments to a “T”) and be a politico – too much contradiction it would seem.

      • Common Man says:

        Ray;

        Colleges and education do not make an intelligent man. I can provide a great deal of individuals walking this earth today that are far wiser, have more common sense and are more worldly than a great many who have graduated from a specific university. I slso know some that hold advanced degrees who are likewise. My point is that a formal education proves nothing; it’s what and how you use it.

        #12 You’re initial statment required the person to be a non-believer, which is a violation of human rights, and as mentioned above would elliminate about 80% of the population.

        I don’t claim to be a Christian, or any other specific type of follower, if anything I’m more of a Druid, however I don’t damn another for their religous followings. Your position reads like you would want someone that would not allow spiritual beliefs to play into any decisions they make, and therefore you would be violating individual rights.

        CM

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          @CM

          The reason I would want to see someone with a degree is that it at least confirms to me that the person has made an effort to begin and complete something that requires long term dedicated commitment (kind of like serving in political office for 2/4/6 years) – it also provides me with someone that has been through the process to sufficiently appreciate the positive and negative of something that is deeply ingrained and entrenched in our culture and throughout the world. Someone who has not been to college or at least complete the initial step is out to lunch on a core aspect of a fundamental building block of our country.

          “Requiring” someone to be a non-believer to hold an office I am voting on is not denying them any human rights what so ever. Whether they are elected to office or not is not dependent on my vote alone – that should be fairly easy to grasp. I am merely asking for improving objectivity – I would consider strong religious beliefs limiting in that fashion and inherently contradictory as I have previously stated.

          • Common Man says:

            Ray;

            I have a problem with the idea that college (as it is today) “provides me with someone that has been through the process to sufficiently appreciate the positive and negative of something that is deeply ingrained and entrenched in our culture and throughout the world.” as that ‘indoctrination’ is a great deal why we have some of the issues of today.

            Universities are producing a great deal more sheep than they are thinkers, as is the entire public education system.

            Again, I do not belittle the educated man as it does demonstrate some level of commitment, but then again so does enlistment in the Armed forces, journeyman electrician, plumber or pipefitter.

            CM

            • Common Man,
              What kind of interaction do you have with college graduates? Because my experience is just the opposite. I’m frequently involved in the interview process for new hires. There is a big difference between the Armed forces, journeyman electrician, plumber or pipefitter (or technical degrees), and recent collage graduates with a bachelors degree. The former possess the skills necessary to do a job. The latter possess the skills to do the job and to think critically about how to solve a problem on their own. This is not always true, as there are individuals from each group the raise/fall to the occasion, but it holds true for many.

              The simple difference I see:

              Do you go to work to “punch the clock and do what you’re told?”
              Or do you go to work to “accomplish tasks, solve problems, complete projects?”

              We’re falling behind the rest of the world in education, and your answer is to encourage less education?

              • Common Man says:

                Todd;

                Again, I do not have issues with those who have graduated college, but my initial point is that a degree would not be a pre-requisite, in my mind, for holding office.

                I have been a recruiter for over 28 years working with some of the best Information Technology minds in the business, and a number of them do not have a degree. I always thought it short sighted management to make a 4-year degree a requirement for employment; especially when the individual lacking one was the best candidate for the job.

                And yes our education system is failing our students K-12 and the colleges are more focused on turning out sheeple than innovators and leaders.

                CM

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                @Common Man –

                Not sure what market you work in – most all IT professionals I work with have at least a four year degree – I would consider it an extraordinary small percentage that do not have college degrees. A four year degree is largely considered a basic requirement – wherein a HS diploma once was (well, still is). I do also know a handful of incredibly talented IT folks that do not have degrees. The reasons all vary as to why. I still hold that a four-year degree is a reasonable filter and considering how many Americans do move through Higher Ed its important enough to have elected officials that can have some experience (good and bad) of being a Higher Ed consumer.

        • TexasChem says:

          CM stated:”Your position reads like you would want someone that would not allow spiritual beliefs to play into any decisions they make…”

          TC:Hey CM wouldn’t an atheists view be considered a theological belief (a religious following if you will)as well since he has no physical proof to say there is no intelligent design by a creator?The atheists would in essence be allowing his spiritual beliefs to come into play during his decision making…

          🙂

          • TEX

            Atheism is not a “theological belief”.

            It is a denial of “theological beliefs”.

            Can an Atheist be spiritual? YES!

            But they do not believe in GOD or in GODs and thus by definition are not religious nor theological.

            You are twisting meanings as was done in the article BF responded to above. Trying to create a religion out of atheism in order to claim that all men are religious. Thus turning the debate into one of who’s God is better instead of whether there is a God.

            And let me put this a bluntly as my cowboy/mountain man background will allow.

            This new wave theory of “Intelligent Design” and the arguments used to support it is a crock of crap.

            • This new wave theory of “Intelligent Design” and the arguments used to support it is a crock of crap.

              You know JAC, I believe in science 100% up-n-down the line. Big Bang, Galaxies, Solar System, Evolution, etc.

              But, have you ever spent anytime outdoors? 😉 Did you looked around last week at all the diversity in animals and plants? All the weird little variations here and there? The amazing variety of designs that really do the same thing in different species?

              And you don’t have to go out into the wild. Look at the amazing diversity in anyone’s backyard.

              I know, evolution does a great job of explaining all that, but I still can’t help but wonder if there was some guiding force behind all of it. I mean, what are the odds?? 😉

              Having said all that, “Intelligent Design” is not something that should be taught or discussed in science class. It’s faith and/or religion that should be taught/discussed at home, in church, etc.

              Hope you had a good time last week!

              • Todd

                I had an absolute GREAT time last week. Thanks.

                You should know by now that I have spent most of my life up to my arm pits in nature.

                Yes it is absolutely amazing. It is the essence of the chaos theory. Kind of like those noisy appliances in the kitchen that when you stand at a distance you can somehow hear a person singing and music.

                Quite frankly I am not sure “Intelligent Design” should even be taught as part of religion or theology. It is a modernized grasping at straws because the hard core simply can’t admit that the stories in the Bible are like the stories told by my other ancestors. They are embellishments designed to pass on history and values. They are not literal and thus to try and stand on them is like standing on quick sand.

                Hope all is well with you and yours.

              • Todd

                Wanted to address your point about the possibility of something else.

                I agree and do not deny God.

                What I reject is the human interpretation that has been handed down by those who use religion to control others. I reject crack pot arguments like the “Intelligent Design” theory now being pushed to explain why the dogma of the past was wrong but now they have it right.

                Holy cow……….just admit you don’t know. Belief in God requires nothing more than FAITH. I don’t have a problem with that.

                My very religious mother was a science person, a very logical and rational thinker. Her answer to all the controversy was that God may not have actually created the heavens and the earth as they exist today. The universe may have started with a big bang. But in her mind, God pulled the trigger. Or as she would say, “he stirred the soup”.

                I don’t have a problem with “Intelligent Design” being discussed in Science Classes myself. A discussion much like the analysis that Black Flag did today would be very useful as a teaching tool.

                But then I think Religion should be taught in school also. I am the weird one I guess, but I think High School kids are much more capable of learning and discussing these things than we give them credit. A basic introduction to philosophy should be required.

                Do you think the fundamentalist Christians would agree to having ALL religions taught in school if we agreed that theirs would be included? Bwahahahahaha

              • Todd

                wonder if there was some guiding force behind all of it

                Totally.

                Its called Laws of Nature and the Universe.

                Gravity started it all, after that everything else followed along.

                The Universe converts entropy into extropy, that is, expends energy to create ever greater complexity.

                The Earth a witness to this action.

                One pundits suggest – most seriously – that the Universe created man for man to create plastic, because the Universe needs plastic (and maybe computers).

                But the Universe DOES move from low complexity to higher complexity in all things.

                Think about it: the Universe started with the lest complex – pure energy.

                It then moved to more complex – matter.

                Then, quarks
                Then, atoms
                Then, molecules
                Then, life
                Then, animals
                Then, humans
                Then, plastic and computers….

                The direction is clear. Increase complexity

              • Wow-it seems we don’t need reason after all-just increased complexity and everything just happens spontaneously- I find this much harder to believe than that there is a God.

              • V.H.

                I think it is bizarre to believe that some “entity” perverts natural law to make “things” happen.

              • Yes, I am aware of that.

    • CM,
      I think you need a lot more than 4 years to do all of that. Keep in mind I am talking about changing things within the system, so that a steady but not sudden change can be made. I know it is a long shot, but I have not yet given up on the idea. The biggest thing is that for a person or group of persons to make the sweeping changes you describe, they would have to wield more power than they should be allowed to have.

      I agree with most of your goals, I just think that you are trying to get there too fast. Even if we had the support to do that, it would burn out quickly because all of those changes involve some short term pain, at least for some people. The market will respond relatively quickly, but not instantly, and those who want to keep some sort of control structure will find it easy to convince people that the changes are failing. We have to start with some common sense changes, let them take hold, then move on to more. We have to prove that our way works as we go along.

  19. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    The ideal candidate is intelligent, moral, and ethical enough to not only never want the job, but to also never take the job; therefore, the ideal candidate cannot ever be elected to political office.

  20. Proof of Heaven and Hell:

    Subject: A CORRUPT SENATOR

    While walking down the street one day a Corrupt Senator was tragically hit by a car and died.

    His soul arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance.

    “Welcome to heaven,” says St. Peter. “Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts, you see, so we’re not sure what to do with you.”

    “No problem, just let me in,” says the Senator.

    “Well, I’d like to, but I have orders from the higher ups. What we’ll do is have you spend one day in hell and one in heaven. Then you can choose where to spend eternity.”

    “Really? I’ve made up my mind. I want to be in heaven,” says the Senator.

    “I’m sorry, but we have our rules.”

    And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell.

    The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a green golf course. In the distance is a clubhouse and standing in front of it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him.

    Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet him, shake his hand, and reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at the expense of the people.
    They played a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar and the finest champagne.

    Also present is the devil, who really is a very friendly guy who is having a good time dancing and telling jokes.

    They are all having such a good time that before the Senator realizes it, it is time to go.

    Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the elevator rises.

    The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens in heaven where St. Peter is waiting for him, “Now it’s time to visit heaven.”

    So, 24 hours passed with the Senator joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a good time and, before he realizes it, the 24 hours have gone by and St. Peter returns.

    “Well, then, you’ve spent a day in hell and another in heaven. Now choose your eternity.”

    The Senator reflects for a minute, then he answers: “Well, I would never have said it before, I mean heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be better off in hell.”

    So St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell..

    Now the doors of the elevator open and he’s in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and garbage. He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags as more trash falls from above.

    The devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulders.

    “I don’t understand,” stammers the Senator. “Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar, drank champagne, and danced and had a great time. Now there’s just a wasteland full of garbage and my friends look miserable. What happened?”

    The devil smiles at him and says,

    “Yesterday we were campaigning, Today you voted.”

    Peace!

    G!

  21. Buck the Wala

    Here is a different take on the religious survey you mentioned earlier today.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/flawed_pew_poll_on_religious_k.html

    • Buck the Wala says:

      True every study/survey can be twisted to make a point. But look at the raw data – the breakdown in the correct answers to individual questions. Is it a perfect study? Of course not – I doubt one truly exists. But still interesting and, to me, still unsurprising.

      • Buck

        Why is it “unsurprising” to you?

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Their findings are as I expected. In religious conversations with others I have long found that atheists tend to know more about religion, even specific religious doctrines, than religious followers.

  22. I have found the perfect candidate.

    He has accomplished more in less time than any of his peers.

    I think he should run for President in 2012.

    Here is a list of his accomplishments.

    http://b4bmorenews.blogspot.com/2010/09/new-244-accomplishments-of-president.html

    • And I have a bridge for sale…..

      • Kathy

        Is it in Arizona?

        I love that bridge. I could use it for a new crossing of the river near my house.

        Will you transport? Never mind. I’ll get my new “perfect” candidate to move it. After all, he can make the earth move…………….

    • Wow JAC, that is an impressive list of accomplishments.

      And it seems his background fits most of the criteria discussed above.

      I think he should run for President in 2012.

      You might just get your “WISH”! 😉

      • Todd

        Did you actually read the list? Well at least a bunch of them.

        Pretty amazing what a supposed professor of poli sci thinks is an “accomplishment”.

        I think he is doubly qualified in some areas. After all he has two religions. Not many people can handle more than one wife, let alone more than one religion. The guy is like Superman or something.

  23. SK Trynosky Sr. says:

    Is there anyone out there who would fit into the category of:

    A one term ass kicking name taker who does not want to be loved.

  24. Gold exploded through $1350, silver blew through $23, and platinum crushed $1700.

  25. TexasChem says:

    @-BlackFlag

    So basically you’re arguement that people have been trying for centuries to prove that God exists; but, no one has yet been able to prove it, therefore, God does not exist is still just a ridiculous appeal to ignorance.
    Your use of fallacies when debating is superb I applaude your efforts!I will still state that your lack of proof makes your arguements just a belief system and your premises a menagerie of false dichotomy.For someone to not view every available option when attempting to determine a point is foolish.

    BF STated:” Its called Laws of Nature and the Universe.
    Gravity started it all, after that everything else followed along.

    TC:So explain how gravity started it all when there was no matter for there to be mass if as you say…and I quote…”Think about it: the Universe started with the lest complex – pure energy.
    It then moved to more complex – matter.”

    Ummm…Where did this gravity you speak of come from to kick off the party if there were no matter?

    BF Stated:”But the Universe DOES move from low complexity to higher complexity in all things

    TC:That is not true.The Universe moves both from low to high and from high to low complexity in things.

    • Tex

      o basically you’re arguement that people have been trying for centuries to prove that God exists; but, no one has yet been able to prove it, therefore, God does not exist is still just a ridiculous appeal to ignorance.

      No, that is not my argument, so I will repeat it one more time.

      You cannot prove something that is outside of a system by appealing to things inside a system

      You cannot prove chemistry using, for example, politics. Chemistry is outside the system of politics – there is no reference for one in the other.

      Any attempt to do so is irrational since no proof can ever exist.

      TC:So explain how gravity started it all when there was no matter for there to be mass if as you say…and I quote…”Think about it: the Universe started with the lest complex – pure energy.

      The moment of the Big Bang was the creation of gravity. The moment before Big Bang was pure energy. The moment before that is wholly irrational since “moment” is a measure of time, and time did not exist.

      It then moved to more complex – matter.”<

      Ummm…Where did this gravity you speak of come from to kick off the party if there were no matter?

      That is what the Higgens Boson discovery was all about – what gives matter its mass?

      And they found it — and found something else, too – quite unexpectedly, but all those that understand Chaos were not so surprised.

      The idea was that *finally* the thing that makes things things would be found!

      And it was, but they also found there is another thing that makes the thing that makes things things! A new field of physics has been discovered and a whole new set of natural laws await our investigation.

      Classic motion (Newton) lead to Relativity (Einstein) lead to Quantum Mechanic (Bohr) now leads to *..* (unnamed) of Higgens, which will lead to another, and another, and another …. for infinity.

      BF Stated:”But the Universe DOES move from low complexity to higher complexity in all things

      TC:That is not true.The Universe moves both from low to high and from high to low complexity in things.

      You are too close. The tearing down is merely a means to build up higher.

      We break down rock to build buildings, to put an example to concept.

      In the cosmological sense it is from low to high complexity. It is obvious and clear.

      • Tex,

        So, if you remember my proof of God using math AND axioms – which define the system.

        • TexasChem says:

          No I’ve never seen your proof.Would you mind posting it again.I’d love to see where your starting point was in your mathmatical equation and your axiom that you used to deduce your conclusion.

          • TexasChem says:

            Please try it without the dragon and leprechaun references.

          • Tex,

            Godel’s Theory of Incompleteness says, among other things, that:

            The Set of All thing cannot contain itself, if the system is consistent – but Incomplete (as it does not contain itself)

            Also, if the Set of All things does contain itself, the system will be wholly inconsistent – but Complete (as it does contain itself).

            Thus, the system, to be consistent, must start with an unprovable axiom – an example, Geometry. Geometry starts with this:
            “There exists a point”

            and from there, all things can be proven, the line, torus, circle, square, etc. But the “point”, itself, cannot be proven and exists solely by declaration. And thus, Geometry is consistent.

            Godel then asked this question out loud:
            Is the Universe consistent or irrational?

            Since it is consistent, the Universe MUST start with an unprovable beginning to be consistent – and thus, we cannot ever Prove the thing that began “this thing we call the Universe”.

            If and only if your definition is precisely no more, no less this of “God”:
            “The unprovable premise of the Universe”, then “God” must exist for the Universe to be consistent.

            But caution: this does not prove a God of causation! It is God by definition

      • TexasChem says:

        The Higgs Boson has not been discovered yet.This is still hypothetical theory.

        BF Stated:”A new field of physics has been discovered and a whole new set of natural laws await our investigation.”

        TC:Yes I agree but it is for the reason that when the Higgs Boson is not found new theories will have to be postulated to explain volume vs mass upon the curvature of space time and its affects upon gravitation.

        Mass effect-Curvature of Spacetime-Closed Volume.

        It makes more sense for a Closed Volume to have an effect upon the Curvature of Spacetime and Gravity than Mass alone.What if Gravitation is not an attractive force between masses, but a pressure force exerted by the 3 dimensions and 4th of time upon closed volumes? Hmmmm?

  26. TexasChem says:

    @-JaC,

    JaCStated:”I don’t have a problem with “Intelligent Design” being discussed in Science Classes myself. A discussion much like the analysis that Black Flag did today would be very useful as a teaching tool.”

    TC:I agree JaC! That is if the class were titled Fallacies 101.”How to use fallacies to destroy a premise.”

  27. TexasChem says:

    JaC Stated:”Quite frankly I am not sure “Intelligent Design” should even be taught as part of religion or theology. It is a modernized grasping at straws because the hard core simply can’t admit that the stories in the Bible are like the stories told by my other ancestors. They are embellishments designed to pass on history and values. They are not literal and thus to try and stand on them is like standing on quick sand.”

    TC:So what is your conclusion as to these stories in the Bible being confirmed by Archaeological digs referring to just these few examples?

    Genesis derives the ancestry of Israel from Mesopotamia. Archaeology confirms it.

    Genesis 11:1 reads that “The whole earth was of one language and one speech.” God confounded the language in Genesis 11:9. Most philologists attest to the likelihood of such an origin for the world’s languages.

    In the genealogy of Esau, there is mention of the Horites (Gen. 36:20). Archaeology confirms the Horites were a prominent group of warriors living in the near East in Patriarchal times.

    The Bible claims the walls of Jericho fell outwards. Critics scoffed because “walls of cities do not fall outwards, they fall inwards.” Archaeology proved in the early 1930s that the walls of Jericho did fall outward, just as the Bible said.

    One critic said the Biblical record of the laver made of brass mirrors was not an original entry into the Priestly Code. So, he dated the writing of the Law at 500 B.C. However, archaeology has since found evidence of such bronze mirrors in what is known as the Empire Period of Egypt’s history (1500-1200 B.C.). That’s contemporary with Moses.

    A century ago such familiar Biblical cities as Jericho, Samaria, Bethel, Shiloh, Bethshan, Gezer, Nineven, Babylon, Ur and many others were shapeless mounds. Critics scoffed at the Biblical record. Within the last 100 years, all of these cities have been uncovered. The importance of the discoveries is that the excavation has produced material which confirms the Scriptres point after point.

    Excavations are dated on the basis of levels at which things are found. At Tepe Gawra, a few miles north of Nineveh, a seal was found which depicted a man, a woman and a serpent. Another seal depicted a man and a serpent. Another seal depicted a man and a women picking fruit from a tree. Behind the woman was a serpent standing erect. The seals were found in the level antedating 3000 B.C. It suggests that the story of the temptation is very old. It was known about long before Abraham and Moses. It was not some Hebrew fairy tale.

    These are but a few of hundreds of confirmations of the Old Testament from archaeology.

    • TexasChem says:

      Are these not literal enough for you JaC?

      • TEX

        I suggest you read my comment again and then think about the examples you cited.

        There is no conflict between the two.

        I did not say the stories have no basis in truth. I said the way in which they are told is an embellishment that can be found in the stories of all people throughout time. Thus the “entire” story can not be trusted at face value as the truth.

        Events that could not be explained at the time, like earthquakes, meteors, or tidal waves, become “direct acts of God” in the stories.

        All peoples of the world have a story of origin. A story that is consistently told over centuries with slight variations. So the fact that items with man, woman and serpent are found at 3000 BC is no big revelation to me. I would be more surprised if that were the actual beginning of that particular story.

        Many Native American legends also involve some animal form in the creation of mankind, and some type of deceit or “trick” played on man by one of the animals. Just because your tribe learned to write down their stories and use the sword and gun to impose them on others doesn’t make your stories any more true than my stories.

        Come on Tex, people here at SUFA can’t even read words and get the story straight. And you want me to believe that a story that is thousand of years old was written down “perfectly” without error or distortion? Think about the Post Office effect before you answer.

    • Tex,

      It might be true that some historical geography has been somewhat described in a book, but that does not prove that ALL things in that book are true.

      If I added “…therefore the Universe was created by leprechaun sex” in, say, a book on the geography of the Rocky Mountains – even if the geography is accurate, does not make my claim of the birth of the Universe true.

      • TexasChem says:

        BF Stated:”It might be true…somewhat described…that book…”If I added “…therefore the Universe was created by leprechaun sex” in, say, a book on the geography of the Rocky Mountains – even if the geography is accurate, does not make my claim of the birth of the Universe true.

        TC:Bit biased there?
        It’s amazing to me the extent some people will go to discredit the book that contains the blueprint for human society to co-exist peacably.People that don’t take the time to fully understand mankinds ancient writings are doomed to repeat past failures in government and even every day life situations that they face.I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again the books of the bible contain an extremely large amount of accurate history and lifes wisdom for those that choose to study and learn.All the major religions books are worth reading and understanding for those facts alone.Perhaps some need to work on their reading comprehension skills and historical culture to be able to understand and see through the writings.As JaC said not everything you can learn from the books is the actual literal meaning.

        • Tex,

          BF Stated:”It might be true…somewhat described…that book…”If I added “…therefore the Universe was created by leprechaun sex” in, say, a book on the geography of the Rocky Mountains – even if the geography is accurate, does not make my claim of the birth of the Universe true.

          TC:Bit biased there?

          Not a bit. It is totally no different.

          Because one thing (or somethings) are true in a book does not make the whole book true. It would be irrational to believe otherwise.

          It’s amazing to me the extent some people will go to discredit the book that contains the blueprint for human society to co-exist peacably

          The Bible which speaks of Moses and Jericho does not contain such blueprint. It contains the stories of murder and slaughter and all sorts of debauchery, terror and destruction.

          The New Testament too (ever read Revelations?)

          .People that don’t take the time to fully understand mankinds ancient writings are doomed to repeat past failures in government and even every day life situations that they face.

          Old writings, learned by rote, are the most dangerous.

          They appear legitimate by age, but are untested by reason. They are the tools of brainwashing, not enlightenment.

          I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again the books of the bible contain an extremely large amount of accurate history and lifes wisdom for those that choose to study and learn.

          And a lot of crap too.

          All the major religions books are worth reading and understanding for those facts alone.

          There are a million books that you can make the same claim too.

          Perhaps some need to work on their reading comprehension skills and historical culture to be able to understand and see through the writings.As JaC said not everything you can learn from the books is the actual literal meaning.

          But if written by a God, why would it be so hard to figure it out?

          I mean he is all-powerful, right?

          • TexasChem says:

            BF STated:”But if written by a God, why would it be so hard to figure it out?”

            TC:It was knowledge given to Man from God written by man.Men that did not have the knowledge, education or scientific understanding that we have today. Gods meanings were interpreted through the eyes so to speak of men not capable of the logical, scientific and deductive reasoning of men today…I’ve never seen a harrier jet because I am a 2,000 years in the past man but the closest thing I can compare it to is a fiery chariot with riders inside.

  28. I am curious BF why you would use the world purposeful to describe the universe. The word infers intelligence of either the universe it’s self or the creator of the universe. I also find myself unable to comprehend what action or interaction or whatever could cause a universe which was created without intelligence to ever spontaneously create an intelligent entity.

    • V.H.

      A seed grows to a tree – purposefully – without intelligence.

      Water flows downhill – purposefully – without intelligence.

      Water turns to ice in cold – purposefully – without intelligence.

      • Okay I understand your use of the word-How about my second question.

        • V.H.

          What second question?

          • “I also find myself unable to comprehend what action or interaction or whatever could cause a universe which was created without intelligence to ever spontaneously create an intelligent entity.”

            Okay it was a statement 🙂 From your first answer-things in the universe just do what is needed without intelligence so what would cause an intelligent entity to be created?

            • V.H.

              What would cause intelligence to be created?

              The need to create even higher orders of complexity….or, simply, the Universe needs plastic.

              • And just what action causes a mindless entity to know it needs plastic.

              • V.H.

                It doesn’t “know”, it just “does”.

                Gravity doesn’t “know” how to work.

                There is no leprechaun running a gravity machine.

                Gravity just “does”.

              • So you are stating that there is no cause or effect involved in creation-things just spontaneously happen. The universe just does “intelligence”

              • V.H.

                No, the other way around.

                Entropic (called “Natural Law”) cause and effect makes things happen, no leprechauns required.

              • Then what cause would cause intelligent life to be created when intelligence isn’t necessary for the universe to come into being and to work.

  29. Why George doesn’t vote

  30. V.H.

    I’ll give you my belief about God.

    God exists by definition =that is, axiomatic= based on a Theory of Incompleteness.

    As such God is as much part of the system but wholly unprovable.

    The system so created is wholly and unfailing consistent, such that even God must obey the Laws of Universe while being the Universe.

    There is no “out there, beyond” God, no more than there is an “out there, beyond the Universe”.

    God is you, the rock, the star, the thing in between the stars, inseparable from the thing called the Universe – and, as such, as I’ve said – wholly subject to the Laws of the Universe.

    Nothing about God or the Universe is SuperNatural, nor can ever be SuperNatural. It is all Natural.

    So, if you want to see God, look in a mirror.

    The mirror is as much as God, as the light reflecting and as is the image in the mirror.

    You, the light, and the mirror are all part of the same thing.

    The only difference is, you know what you are looking at

  31. V.H.

    Down here.

    Then what cause would cause intelligent life to be created when intelligence isn’t necessary for the universe to come into being and to work.

    Now that is a good question!

    First, consider that (as far as we know) it took the Universe 13,500,000,000 years for life to start.

    Life is self-evolving and relentless. Theory of Evolution is very accurate in describing the method life, naturally, creates the conditions for its own existence and improves those conditions (makes more life).

    More life creates pressure on life, and as well creates variances to life and each of these apply rule #1, relentless

    With such conditions, it is inevitable that some form of life will develop that will chose its own development – that is “intelligence”.

    • Well crap BF-it was the question I started out with. 🙂 I am going to bed now-will think about this tomorrow-but at this moment it seems to me that you do not know the answer to the question-you simply believe that science will answer the question- and what do you mean “it is inevitable that some form of life will develop that will chose its own development – that is “intelligence”. If your theory is true wouldn’t life have had to already done so?

      • V.H.

        I do know the answer, but you can’t accept it (yet).

        What happens when you mix sodium in water?
        Water burns.

        Is that an act of God?

        Where is sodium and oxygen created?
        In the nuclear engine of the core of a star.

        Is that an act of God?

        How are you made up of carbon, water, and a bunch of other trace elements? Where did they come from?
        The nuclear engine of the core of a star.

        Is that an act of God?

        How did they get “here”?
        The star blew up, in an explosion so powerful the energy released exceeded -for a period of time – the entire energy output of a hundred billion stars.

        Is that an act of God?

        But how did it get “HERE!”?
        Gravity. Slowly all these elements got pulled to together by the mutual, universal attraction called Gravity. The more that got pulled together, the stronger the pull and more got pulled together, the stronger the pull.

        As eventually the remnants of the gas of the exploded star became so pulled together so tightly, it caused a nuclear reaction and re-lit, and became the Sun.

        The very little bit that wasn’t pulled into the star eventually got pulled into an orbit around it, and eventually by gravity and collisions, built the planets, out of the guts of the elements of the exploded star.

        On one, which was the one close enough but far enough only got enough heat but not too much for water to be a liquid on it. It was just probability it was here, called “Earth”

        Methane, simple carbon and hydrogen, under many, many conditions, compounds itself into higher and higher complex chains.

        Some of these chains, with other elements, plus just a little bit of electric energy (created by static), is enough to cause a interesting chemical reaction – one, that with a potassium exchange, creates a molecular engine that does work – the work; makes more of that exact same molecule. We have “life”.

        Add a few hundred million years more of a mix of such chemicals, and we have “you”.

        No finger of God required. Just a really, really, really, really big place filled with a really, really, really, really a lot of stuff over a really, really, really, really long time.

%d bloggers like this: