Thread: GashleyF's views, based on my theory:

Well, that is kind of a wierd way to approach a person, I'll answer your question anyway.
I'm assuming the main thing you want to figure out is whether I'm an atheist or a religious person. I'll tell you right off the bat I'm neither. I'm a freethinker. At any rate, I'll get to what I think of the creation of the universe.
I personally believe in the theory of theophysics. With the information mankind has access to now, I believe that God created the universe with the Big Bang, and that He set up a natural law which we delve into and discover with our research of the sciences. I'm kind of sketchy on the next part. So, don't take me completely word for word. I believe that He started the creation with two things, matter and antimatter. He either made the two from photons (light), or He made photons from the two and went on from there. The latter would kind of coincide with the phrase "Let there be light!" Anyway, the creation also set up how our world is made from contradictions, heaven and hell, light and dark, sky and earth, matter and antimatter. After it, the universe developed as we believed it developed (possibly with some guidance from Him). Our Earth was created 4 billion years ago in our nebula (maybe the nebula had gone away by then, I never studied that far back in history). It eventually became livable. Creatures began to appear and evolved into what we know them as today (with His guidance).
Well, that's what I believe. It probably sounds like Scientology, but it actually does have some merit to it. You know, the Big Bang was originally thought up by the Vatican to explain the creation of the universe. It just got stripped of all religious ties some time afterwards. As for why I believe what I've just told you, the world seems far too organized to be a creation of random chance of some statistical anomaly. The natural law is too perfect. The Divine Proportion is too odd to be chance. Everything just seems to lean in the direction of my beliefs. Then again, I am basing my beliefs in what has been said in the works of Dan Brown.

-----
The first thing that I hits me when I read your response is BOOM....you call yourself a 'freethinker'. This means you do not blindly ascribe to the notion of being subservient to society - so therefore, you are no an extremist. What I mean is that you do not say 'bush is the president, so therefore he is right.' or 'what is legal is not necessary what is right'.
You talk about god, and that he created the world through the series of scientific explanations. You reject the notion that god creates just by saying - you think that god creates by the anti-matter, matter theory, and that there is a logical, observable process to everything. Thus, from all this, I distill that you believe in an ordered universe, and that life is scientifically one way.
In terms of political views, these are my guesses:
- Ideaologically, you are republican. You ascribe to the 'conservative liberty' style of things, that you need to use liberty with caution - you cannot throw liberty to the winds and upset the natural balance of how the universe acts. However, this is different from the 'neocon republicans', of course; this is more along the lines of the 'republican principle' of old.
- You are a free thinker, so you are not supportive of the religious initiatives; that is, something being 'immoral' is not a good enough reason for you to try to outlaw it. I was debating on if the 'order' principle is more than the 'freethinker' principle in you - but since right off the back you told me about your free-thinking ability, I think here is roughly where you stand. You tilt towards the 'liberal' viewpoints in the social issues - abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage etc. On economic issues, there's a certain order to things - whoever is draining the order of the system too much gets the boot in your opinon. If its the afluent citizens taking too much money, give em more taxes. If its the needy taking too much, give them less.
- Overall, (I need to finish my paper lol), I label you a moderate.

How close am I?

i don't like the term moderate lol.

Well, well, well, I think you got me pretty good. I'm impressed. Not to mention, I have a pretty good sense of pride since this is the first time on this site that I have been called something other than a socialist. Well, it's the second time, really. Of course, I've mostly argued with captial L Libertarians since I got here.

The only thing I feel odd about is the Republican comment. I've never really been called that before, but then again, I've mostly debated social issues which as you guessed right on, I lean towards the liberal side. While I know that you gave me a party name simply because it may have coincided overall with my views, I just want to make it clear that I'm an independant. I vote the person. I would never give unconditional loyalty to a party or anything for that matter (another thing you guessed right on). The only exceptions to that rule is my country (note that I didn't say government or leader) and mankind as a whole. Of course, they only condition they ask of me is that I try to improve them.

Originally Posted by The_Bear

i don't like the term moderate lol.

You don't eh? Well, that's actually what I tell everybody (or try to tell them). Anyway, sorry I can't discuss this with you further, but I have to go to bed.

nah, when you wake up read this explanation:
- When I called you a republican I didn't mean that you were part of the republican party. I mean, republican principle as in you think there should be a strong enough order to society, but not too strong that it infringes on your ability to think freely. You 'freethink', and you see the need for order in society, because there is a natural order in the universe.

Haha....REPUBLICANS of the republican party have lost that damn republican principle.

As to a moderate.....i guess you are a voice of moderation between the extremes....but what does that mean? It doesn't describe anything!!!

(ps....because party's are so vague themselves, I couldn't truthfully be definitive of any party....but if I did guess I would have guessed indepdendent. Get some views in there! Take up some causes! Form an indpendent free-thinkers association!)

Originally Posted by The Bear

Get some views in there! Take up some causes! Form an indpendent free-thinkers association!

Hahahaha! Sorry, but no one has ever said that about me either. To be honest, I'm the most political and argumentative person within my entire school. I'm practically famous there for it. Although, if you're talking about taking a definitive side, I have to say you're probably right. I often make peace between the two sides of all the issues in my mind, but I argue vehementally that the compromise between the two is right.

By the way, I have a question. What exactly did you mean by this statement?

Originally Posted by The Bear

that is, something being 'immoral' is not a good enough reason for you to try to outlaw it

When you say immoral, are you referring to a society's or a specific part of society's view on morality, or are you talking about what I think is moral or not.

For example, I support allowing abortion (under some conditions, but I still support it), but it's because I see not allowing, under some conditions, as immoral. I don't believe people should be forced to care of a dependent just because of a few nights of intimacy. I do believe that if they're stupid enough to get an unwanted kid again, they should be forced to have it because there are always consequences to your actions exceot for when there is still room for forgiveness. So, the point is, I do base my beliefs on large part due to morality. It's simply my version of morality.

Perhaps it's the concept of necesary evils that you are talking about. I do realize and accept them. For example, even though I think triage is immoral, I still believe it's extremely necesary and that it would be foolish to not use it simply because you think it's evil. It's a necesary evil.