Battlezone Forums

Most go poor, few get rich. Kill the rich and rebuild ...

Red Spot wrote:Most go poor, few get rich. Kill the rich and rebuild ...

At the end of the line, there is only stagnation and despair.

[Able-bodied] People are poor due to the choices they make in life.

If you are [healthy and] poor, it is your own fault.

You are a victim of your own choices and not because of "they".

i.e., "I can't get ahead because 'they' are holding me back."

or, "I can't get an education because 'they' made it too expensive."

etc.

People will seemingly do anything to get into a "position" of power....

http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2012/02/24 ... lap-dance/

I far prefer charity by moral obligation than by government law.

Freedom of Religion gone to far?

http://news.yahoo.com/penn-judge-muslim ... 00330.html

In that case yes.
Although I can see the case for an argument that obsessive religious belief is indicative of a mental development deficiency, and as such, it should be taken into consideration as a defence.

People are poor due to the choices they make in life.

While this can be correct, you cannot seriously be telling me that 70% of the population of Asia chose to live the way they do. You really need to wake up out of your "American dream" and realise that you live in a very very rich country and that your poor are not even close to being like the real poor. Things can get so much worse, and you better hope it never does happen in the US, because the chances are the real poor in the US will be able to arm themselves and a gun can get you out of real poverty very quickly.

I can solve a lot of the religious freedom issues. Here is my solution:

Atheism is now a religion. By law, by constitution, the government cannot demand or enforce it. As a side effect, with the extreme anti-religion now a religion, it is impossible to apply separation of church and state for there is now nothing that is not "the church", which is how it was always meant to be, "Separation of Church and State" is not in the constitution or any other legal document in the form of law. It is a lie allowing the government to establish the religion of atheism over all others (which is expressly disallowed).

So many issues are changed by simply re-framing the issue.


OOO, unrelated. Gay Marriage. To fix that kerfuffle, I abolish legal marriage and make the only legal binding form a "Civil Union", thus marriage remains a practice of religion and a civil union of law, no one is separate, and all are equal (in legal opportunity). All marriages on the books (the legal meanings) are here by converted to civil unions.


So many problems can be solved by simply changing the interpretation of the situation as a whole. People are mostly just too thick to do so on their own. The problem is that making such points can often get you called a crazy, racist, sexist, or some other name. For example, when Obama was elected and the news said it was "a great day that a black man was elected President of the United States" I was sickened, not because of the man's race, but because we were unable to accept the fact of his position without the need to mention his race except as a method of physical description. More so, it is appalling that if I make reference to the color of one's skin simply as a manner of description, I am chided as a racist.

The world is a place that makes no sense. Nearly everyone must just be either dumb or complacent.

Hmm, a bit extreme, Atheism is just a word. If you travel to Saudi Arabia, they will not accept it as a description in the Your Religion box of the visa application form, none is also not allowed. So those of us with an open and rational outlook on life are forced to pick from a limited list of acceptable (too them) answers.
Personally I would not use Atheism as a description, I would use None, it is a more accurate indication of the rejection of organised and therefore restricted belief systems.

The world is a place that makes no sense.

Correct, but it makes allot more sense than most religions do, belief is not required, it offers truth in all its appalling complexity to those who are brave enough to try and cope with it.

The Islamists will try very hard to subvert a nations own laws and bring sharia style judgements to their followers (and others it would seem in this case) I am quite surprised that this can happen in the US.
One thing I don't understand about the article is, how did anyone know he was dressed up as Muhammed?

well, i didn't tell them to reproduce like bunnies either.

The Asia situation is not just down to numbers, it has deep cultural roots going back thousands of years, the (religious) caste system still determines most peoples lot in life, if anything it is the extremes of poverty that have caused the exploding population not the other way round.

Also, I am not an Atheist, I am a radical philosopher, I do what all religions once did when they first started out. I despise established Religions because they only attempt to silence discussion and insight, with their "once truths" that have now actually become obvious lies and their books of ancient stories/rules that must not be maligned, they are a bad joke, the enemy's of the truth and a memetic disease afflicting the evolution of the human state.
I know why they are that way, it is not a good enough excuse.
The Truth is beautiful and dreadful.

'Atheism' is just as certain as any faith-based dogma.

I too try my best not to describe myself using a loaded definition. Christianity ..may.. be correct. But hell, Hellenismos ..may.. be correct.

At some point however, you have to inwardly assemble a world view that works for your intellect, whether or not something absolutely implausible. . .or . . something believable, but unlikely, has been fed to you from day one.

making more babies because you are poor makes about as [much] sense as spending more money when you don't have any.

Just had an interesting discussion on religion in college, and I must say N1 seems to have much the same idea as everybody else.

I've never seen the point in organised religion; I'm in fact completely opposed to it. Believe what *you* want to believe, not what others want you to. Make your own choices. That's why I support antitheism so much. My believes fall more in line with classical satanism, which is the belief in anything that proposes enough evidence to be considered truth.

"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

AHadley wrote:Just had an interesting discussion on religion in college, and I must say N1 seems to have much the same idea as everybody else.

My god, there is hope. Great paradigm shifts come with generations or wars.