MTG Salvation

Quote from magickware99

We're not surrendering any rights. I don't actually know of any right that we were supposed to have that was taken away.

Rather, we're "allowing" (because I don't think any of us really know wtf the Dept. of Homeland Security and the NSA are allowed to do, and I certainly do not know what the Patriot Act allowed the government to do) the government to keep more on an eye on us.

I think they're actually two separate issues, but people like to conflate them with one another simply because it sounds better.

Gov. spying on us more is a bad thing, even if they'll never actually give a **** about your texts or phone-calls.

I suppose privacy rights might be broken? But in that case it's merely the fact that the laws allow organizations the ability to suspend our privacy rights. Contact your local representative everyday and tell them to make a big fuss of it in Congress.

Fourth Amendment. Looking through phones records and emails easily falls within "unreasonable searches". They do this without warrants and without "probable cause".

"In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that a search occurs when 1) a person expects privacy in the thing searched and 2) society believes that expectation is reasonable."

Quote from Commons

IDK seems like Obama is out to get the Tea party if you ask me.

Slightly off topic, but If i was obama I would be going after them too. They are radical fundamentalist with agendas aimed at regressing our lives back into their utopia. The hints of racism, and hatred are kinda hard to miss. It would be like giving a group that followed the Nazism beliefs tax exemption.

Quote from bLatch

Quote from slipknot72102

The more cars they sell the cheaper these cars will become because of availability. For example the first Blu-ray players were hundreds of dollars and now you can get one for like $50. Electric cars are the future as long as they don't run into road blocks from the NADA and other lobby groups.(like those for oil and gas)

Yes and no. A lot of the high cost for electri vehicles is actually tie dup in materials and less so in R&D (although there is a fair amount of that as well). Suffice to say, barring extreme advnacement in the technology we won't be seeing 15K-18K vehicles like the tesla any time soon

sometime you should look at the science portion of reddit. It would amaze you what we find each day that isn't reported on mainstream news. Currently 2 different batteries are being tested which are both cheaper and better than the current ones in use. None of this was actually funded by tesla. Now once someone patents it we will have to see how expensive they get and stuff, but hopefully it will be an open patent since it is for the good of mankind as a whole.

As far as a time frame and cost of an entry level Tesla model in the future who knows. So many variables exist like fights with the dealerships and with lobbyist who will try to make these cars more expensive(or force excessive taxes on them or something)

However I am willing to believe that unless something happens in the next 10 years a fully electric car could easily be in the 15k to 20k price point...then again I may be an optimist.

IMO if you have to pick theism that is the best you have to say its deism. Deist don't push their beliefs onto others. They don't start wars in the name of the creator. Although Deism isn't exactly the same as it was when it was the belief of most of our founding fathers, which I refer to as "pure Deism" it is still closely related to theology even today.

Quote from magickware99

Quote from pb4786

Quote from magickware99

Lack of evidence cannot be evidence for anything.

Do you say that Bigfoot may or may not exist because a lack of evidence isn't evidence, or do you say, Bigfoot doesn't exist?

Do you say that unicorns may or may not exist because a lack of evidence isn't evidence, or do you say, unicorns don't exist?

Do you say that the Celestial Teapot may or may not exist because a lack of evidence isn't evidence, or do you say, the Celestial Teapot doesn't exist?

Do you say that leprechauns may or may not exist because a lack of evidence isn't evidence, or do you say, leprechauns don't exist?

Do you say that Santa may or may not exist because a lack of evidence isn't evidence, or do you say, Santa doesn't exist?

See, a default position is reasonable.

You can only say may or may not exist for all of those. You lack understanding of basic logic if you say otherwise, and you're only letting your emotions get in the way if you do understand basic logic.

Here's a much easier example for you to understand.

"I've yet to get a 180 on my LSAT PT. Therefore, I will never get a 180 on my LSAT PT."

Or

"We've yet to land a man on Mars. Therefore, we will never land a man on Mars."

Note that everything you wrote above effectively translates to my examples.

Does that make sense?

In terms of logic, you cannot make a conclusion that is supported by the nonexistence or lack of of something.

I wanted to comment on this. There is evidence that through hard study you can improve your scores. We have landed objects on mars and currently plan on landing people thus we have evidence that it is possible. As far as aliens go most scientist will say that with what we currently know it is almost impossible that aliens don't exist somewhere in the universe. Most are skeptical that we have actually be in contact with them in any form though.

There is a theory that if god is everywhere and contributes to our lives as much as some believe then we would have found evidence by now. This is the same theory that disproves bigfoot. If these creatures did exist then why do we not find concrete evidence for it? Remains or fossil records, something we can bank on. Its not too say that it won't happen and 100% that god and big foot don't exist, but that it isn't logically or statistically probable.

Occam's razor states that the simplest most logical explanation for something is most likely the truth. Currently it is easier to believe the universe created itself through some process we don't know or understand instead of believing that some creator just existed magically and magically created the universe.

Quote from Highroller

Quote from slipknot72102

The theory or belief that God does not exist.

Other forms of atheism exist like some forms of paganism

... Ok, you want to run that by me again?

wiccan is a form of paganism that does not believe in a god thus all wiccans are atheist. atheism is not believing in a god however you got there. You can have religion and still be an atheist.

For example in other parts of the world where religion is not as dominant children even older children have not heard of theism. I have seen several stories and such were at the age of 10(or even later) children are first introduced to theism. This is when they learn that they have no belief of god although it was there the whole time.

Quote from Cyan

As mystery said, the Tesla line seem like great cars, but they're not for everyone. The pricing that he reported is accurate. They're supposed to be adding a 3rd car between the 30-40K range, but even that is out of the price range for probably 60%(or more) of the people in the US. Granted, those same people end up spending more money in the long run via gas etc, but it ultimately comes down to not being able to get credit approval for that large of a loan.

The more cars they sell the cheaper these cars will become because of availability. For example the first Blu-ray players were hundreds of dollars and now you can get one for like $50. Electric cars are the future as long as they don't run into road blocks from the NADA and other lobby groups.(like those for oil and gas)

Quote from Vaclav

NADA only seems to be contesting them in Texas that I've heard though, right?

Is that the only place they're trying to have a Tesla direct dealership or something? Or is this a matter of locality law only working for the NADA there? (Or have I just not heard enough about it to know of other places?)

Virginia, Texas, SC, so far with more litigation on the dockets of several other states. This could be a case for all 50 states soon enough....except for probably cali. I don't see them trying to stop this for obvious reasons.

Quote from Highroller

Quote from slipknot72102

all children are born atheist. So it is actually impossible to indoctrinate them into atheism....

This is bull. Not having any religious stance is not the same as atheism. Furthermore, not being able to comprehend what religion is is not the same as atheism.

The theory or belief that God does not exist.

No child believes in god until they are force fed by parents. Atheism can in fact be "not having any religious stance". Other forms of atheism exist like some forms of paganism and non-theistic religions. Atheism is a rather large term that can be split into several other related terms.

Quote from bakgat

It's impossible for a religious person to have a big problem with indoctination. They, for the most part, believe that instructing their children in which ever particular religion it is they follow is in the best interest of the child.

Luckily for us religious folks we are under no obligation to defend how we raise our children to you. Off course we all know that when atheist try to teach to teach their children atheistic values and norms they are not indoctrinating their children.

all children are born atheist. So it is actually impossible to indoctrinate them into atheism....although IMO you can't indoctrinate a lack of beliefs since that is what atheism is.

@OP

IMO it is wrong to force children to believe in any religion or not to believe in a religion until they are mature enough to make decisions for themselves. One of the tele-evangelist said it best when he said we need to get them when they are young and make them believe.(because this is the only time they are vulnerable to believe in our crazy stories)

The part in "()" is my on addition of what he was really saying.

Quote from ColonelCoo

Quote from Dechs Kaison

Quote from ColonelCoo

I have a likewise big problem with parents who teach that when you die, the worms eat you. I believe it very harmful to the child and creates a me-first personality and sense of entitlement with a strong disregard for others. Get what you can right now without regard to harm to others is what I see as the endgame for atheism.

Hang on now, nothing about atheism promotes selfishness and disregard for others. Sure, they believe there are no eternal consequences for misdeeds, but atheists are just as capable of selflessness as Christians. In fact, they may be more so inclined. For an atheist, your actions are all that matters; they are all that is, all that remains. An atheist who wants "eternal consequences" such as being remembered well will act accordingly.

Right you state that their CAPABLE of selflessness as Christians. Only thing is that Athiest don't act as selflessly as Christians. It's not a matter of capability, it a mater of doing. When compared to Theist, Atheist are not very giving at all.
http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/102-atheists-and-agnostics-take-aim-at-christians

Further, the Atheist is not as engaged in civic discourse:
http://www.pewforum.org/Religion-News/Religious-people-make-better-citizens-study-says.aspx
Meaning Christians are better neighbors.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-11-15-column15_ST_N.htm

Further, the lack of volunteering means that Atheist will be more likely to be depressed than theist as they age (over 65):

http://www.pursuit-of-happiness.org/science-of-happiness/caring/caring-and-happiness-reviews/

Quote from lymphaholic

A Christian who wants his eternal reward will do whatever he wants and it's ok. We're all sinners, right? All he has to do is say "I'm sorry, I still love you Jesus" and nothing bad happens to him.

Quote from ColonelCoo

I have a likewise big problem with parents who teach that when you die, the worms eat you.

That's true regardless of who officiates your burial though. Or do you think the faithful decompose differently?

A little jibe? Fair enough. But you believe you're flesh, we believe we are spirit and flesh. Also the flesh shall be resurrected and perfected.

Quote from Dechs Kaison

Anyway, when someone in a secular household asks where grandma is the traditional response is something about keeping her alive in your heart.

I believe it very harmful to the child and creates a me-first personality and sense of entitlement with a strong disregard for others. Get what you can right now without regard to harm to others is what I see as the endgame for atheism.

What do you expect?

Fear of eternal torment builds character.

Belief of accountability is motivation. Fear of torment is not.

we have studies showing the exact opposite of these too. We have studies that show that atheist are actually more moral and less likely to commit crimes. Any single small survey or study should be questioned for validity.

Quote from Tiax

Is this actually Patriot Act authority? I think it's just FISA.

The patriot act essentially gave FISA a little more room to be more invasive. It is the type of law that is so gray it could almost be used for anything.

Quote from Dechs Kaison

A lot of times this argument comes up I hear someone say:

"What do I care? I have nothing to hide."

Sometimes I lean that way. I mean, why should I worry if the government hears what I say? I'm not planning any assassinations, bank robberies, or terrorist attacks. If listening in to phone calls prevents these things, then why shouldn't I support it?

Then I realize I have nothing to hide because currently nothing I do breaks any current laws. Right now it's not illegal to be Christian, be in an interracial relationship, be gay or support any number of causes. It's not illegal for me to speak my mind. One day it could be. We've seen what happens when the country at large perceives a threat from something like communism. American citizens were put into concentration camps for allegations. Imagine the witch hunting a government could do with phone records. What's going to be the next "communism" to hunt?

Other than the fact that the more they watch us the more "witch hunting" as you called it will happen. While it has nothing to do with government the novel 1984 is a perfect example of how technology could move forward enough to allow people to access our thought and punish us for them. I understand this is somewhat a slippery slope, however one day we could be arrested for thinking about killing someone or for lusting over someone. Will it ever get this far? Probably not however is it necessary to go as far as we have gone. I mean the FBI does want backdoors into all communications taking place.

The other big reason one could have a problem with the current policies is the cost. Instead of spending all of this extra money spying on people most of whom are law abiding citizens we could be creating entry level jobs or helping those who are struggling to get back on their feet with education or job training.

Quote from Ulfsaar

Tell that to the guy who's having a gun pointed at him and has nothing to defend himself with because some jackass in Congress took away his right to carry.

Again bringing up this rhetoric despite the fact that NO ONE IN CONGRESS IS TAKING AWAY YOUR RIGHT TO PROTECT YOURSELF IN THE UNLIKELY CIRCUMSTANCE THAT YOU ACTUALLY NEED TO USE DEADLY FORCE.

That being said another point I would like to make that pertains more to the thread although it is somewhat related to what I posted above is where we draw the line.

In one circumstance it is perfectly acceptable to take someones life. However this is only if you would prevent them from intentionally taking other lives.(or your own)

This is contrary to most religious beliefs and I understand that.(for instance wearing mixed fabrics is a death sentence in the bible) However we don't need old books or old "codes of law" to have morality. We as a society should be able to easily find morality. For instance a person who we can prove without a shadow of doubt committed murder(s) should only be put to death IF we have no way to prevent future killings from this person. This is just not the case in the united states. We can lock someone in a high security prison and pretty much guarantee they will kill no one else.

This is why I am against capital punishment. Remember that in other countries being gay or poking holes in a common religious belief can lead to capital punishment. Keep that in mind when you argue for these measures.

This is part of the so called "Patriot Act" and has been going on since at least then and probably before. Honestly most people would be surprised how much of our activity is monitored under the gray areas of the laws. Several tech sites have published articles where they have used different means to detect government snooping and all of the random stuff they look at. For example several times facebook and other social media/content sites have been targeted. Reports have been made that even the atheist subreddit has be targeted because for some reason being an atheist is equivalent to being militant.... Of course not all of this can honestly be proven per se because the government hires well trained people and such.

Honestly a lot of this we have brought upon ourselves with bigotry and fear of anything and everything. This is just another never ending war against shadows. IMO this will be our downfall.

For those of you who don't know Tesla Motors is a start-up fully electric car company from California. They received a pretty hefty loan as part of the president initiative for clean energy. The loan has since been paid in full and the company has grown considerably.(their stock has essentially tripled)

Their sales model is to make the vehicles then have their own dealerships set up. This is where the point of contention is. Apparently somehow it is unlawful for manufacturers to sell their own vehicles independently of car dealerships.

To me this seems backwards, moronic, and kinda typical of the capitalist way. The National Automobile Dealers Association is apparently pissed because without going through a third party these cars are less costly for the people.

Am I the only one who is pissed about this? Is there some intrinsic value from forcing car manufacturers to go through private dealers?

Quote from bocephus

Quote from Ulfsaar

I don't understand how my child being a serial killer would be my fault.

Your child is your responsibility. Pretty simple premise.

Quote from Blinking Spirit »

I defy you to find one other person on this board who will come here and stand with you in saying, "Down with the death penalty, up with filicide."

I am not anti death penalty. I think the death penalty should be reinstated across the country with the loopholes fixed so the guilty can not have unlimited appeals.

You do know the MTGS board is not the end all be all to sides of an issue.

what if the child lost their mental health after being an adult? My parents are no longer responsible for me as I am an adult. What if I was to freak out and murder a bunch of people? So their fault huh?

Quote from bLatch

Quote from Vaclav

All the statements of them being targeted are something I accept as true - but as I've said probably a hundred times in this thread, and largely to you that you can't seem to accept - is that "targeting" fundamentally is only a problem when it's biased.

And then you somehow come to the conclusion that targeting only a specific political ideology isn't biased...

Lies. Only a small portion of conservative groups were actually targeted. Several conservative groups got the typical free pass(which IMO is bad as all groups should have to prove that they deserve tax exempt status)

Of the conservative groups that were "targeted" not a single one was denied once they got all of the requested paper work in. At least one liberal organization was denied for what ever reason. Several other liberal groups also had to disclose donors and such(which is what was requested of the "targeted" conservative groups)

Source for this. Some other news sites and stuff list others, but the washingtonpost is pretty damn trustworthy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/15/report-the-irs-also-targeted-at-least-three-liberal-groups/


EDIT: I again am of the opinion that all groups(churches included) should have to go through many checks and measures before getting tax exempt.(although I will say that IMO churches are a multi-billion dollar a year for profit business and should be tax accordingly)

Quote from bocephus

Quote from slipknot72102

So essentially it comes down to capital punishment. Some studies show that it is more expensive than life in prison. Morally speaking the whole eye for an eye narrative has pretty much be proven immoral in society. I mean to me capital punishment makes no sense if it is in fact more expensive.

The act of putting someone to death is not more expensive, its the litigation that racks up the money. Its a situation where its not worth to spend the monies to do the right thing because of lawyers and loopholes. Fix the loopholes and limit tha amount of appeals and you will see the cost drop dramaticly.

several people who have been scheduled for execution have been proven innocent due to the appeals process we currently have. If we didn't execute a single guilty person to guarantee that one or more innocent people don't get murdered then it's worth it IMO. Yes I said murder because that is what it is.