I'm a Conservative Ask Me Anything.

I see no reason not to.

 

When I say I am conservative, I mean that I am a right wing libertarian with certain conservative values. I am mostly libertarian overall. Also you don't have to be religious to be conservative. I am I guess you could call a secular conservative.

 

You know, I found your opening post intriguing. It was interesting because several years ago I did something similar on a different Forum. I offered to answer any question whatsoever in order to start a serious discussion.

And I did answer all the serious questions, and followed through on all serious discussions. It appears to me that you answer the question, but then shy away when the debate starts. When I did it, I had many discussions. Including a couple with people who changed my way of thinking. And, in the end, I acknowledged it. I thought (and still think) that it's the decent thing to do.

So let's see if you can answer questions: Do you believe a god or gods exist? And this question, I must tell you, is not meant to start a religious discussion. It's more to understand your thought process.

 

as I have said I am agnostic. I don't think a god exists nor do I think a god doesn't exist. I am equally open to the idea of their being a god as I am open to the idea of their not being a god.

 

I think that as of right now, it is necessary and good to have an active military and an active militaristic foreign policy with all the external threats we have now. That being said, when all those external threats go away, I am totally open to reducing the defense budget.

 

And what do you believe?

 

I believe that their is just as much chance of there being a god, as there is of there not being a god. I think both points of view are equally unprovable though.

 

There's an interview with a Dutch ex-banker named Ronald Bernard that's been floating around on the internet. Have you seen it? If yes, what do you think about it?

I've seen it, and I believe him. I'm good at reading people, and I know he's telling the truth.

 

[QUO

I have not seen it so I have no opinion about it one way or another. But I will definitely check it out.

 

How do you measure this "chance" you talk about?

And how did you come to the conclusion that the existence of god is unprovable. I agree that you can't prove the non-existence because, clearly, a no-god would be impossible to show. There are no consequences to the non-existence of god, no interactions... nothing conceivable to point to and say "there is the proof of a no-god". That part I understand. But not sure how you came to the conclusion that the existence is unprovable too.

 

When I say that it is unprovable that there is a god, what I mean is that there is no hard deductive evidence to show that there is one. There is some inductive evidence that you could look at and point to that conclusion, but I have personally not seen any hard evidence to prove to me that there is a God.

 

Who is going to win the Stanley Cup?

 

What inductive evidence is that?

 

I refer you to this link. It's far to complex to have all in one comment.
http://www.evidenceunseen.com/artic...inductive-arguments-the-improbability-of-god/

 

It would be a "begging the question" fallacy if it resulted in a conclusion based upon a premise. He just asked a question, so it's not.

 

No, sorry. Posting the link to a looong article is an old trick to duck away from a discussion.

It's like saying that you can't back your position, so now you tag-team with the author of an article who isn't even here.

And since you opened a thread offering to answer any question, I would expect you to answer. Links are great as references. To support what you say in case there is any doubt. But you should be able to hold your ground on your own.

 

Ok, MDG. I was thinking you just wanted to make me read a long article to keep me "busy". So I didn't actually read it at first. But I happened to leave that page open on my computer. My son read it and commented on it out loud (his words were "that's obvious, but...").

So I finally read the page. And it's actually very simple: Looks like what you are bringing here is a rebuttal (based on Bertrand Russell) against one particular argument (the inductive argument) which is sometimes used (or was used in Russell's time) against the existence of god.

I agree that the inductive proof that god doesn't exist is not logically sound. But that's all. It's not in any way, shape or form any sort of inductive (or otherwise) evidence pointing towards the existence of god. Nor is it even the author's intention to use it as such.

So...that was disappointing.

 

Thank you for posting that link!

It says volumes, but not about what you think that it says!

 

It is a fact Conservatives eat babies, so how do you prefer your babies, boiled or fried?

 

Yes... a question that presumes the claims made in the question are true.
When did you stop beating your wife?
Begging the question.

 

Uh, you are ignorant of events agent.

The law suit was filed because there were 11 people killed by 2 mass murders. Since then, 11 more were killed by 2 more. Dozens died from drugs and alcohol, but if you are against the constitutional right that protects all other rights, you certainly do not care about lives lost because of ineffective mental health care.

 

Your paranoia is your problem, not mine!

 

Tell the parents of these dead students that.

And the families of these people need to hear your callous ignorant denial too.

San Marco killed two more workers before turning the gun on herself. Dead at the scene were Ze Fairchild, 37, and Maleka Brinley-Higgins Pineda, 28, of Santa Barbara. Pineda was just back from maternity leave. Also Dexter Shannon, 57, of Oxnard, and Lompoc residents Nicola Grant, 42, and Guadalupe Swartz, 53.

Here are some more students from 2001 that have families that need to hear your rejection of lawfulness that will protect lives.

Here are the parents and children of an insane man who killed them all with knives.


<<MOD EDIT - Rule 3 - Flamebaiting>>