Slashdot Mirror

I can think of one asteroid they should aim them all at. On the right day with a half-mile spread.

You have obviously never quarrelled with a pious man.
Suffering the horrible pain of Hell for eternity comes out often.
Now, I don't know your books, I know what your fellow Christians (I am assuming you are) tell me.
Why should I trust you over them?

Many hold positions like these: http://www.bible.ca/su-annihilation-refuted.htm (which I don't give squat whether they are biblically accurate or not, it's your problem, not mine).
Others argue that an offence against an infinite being warrants an infinite punishment.
Many agree that there is some form of eternal suffering.

So, don't waste your time explaining the Bible to an atheist.
Explain it to your fellow Christians, since they are apparently wrong.
(Why you religious people can never agree on your own doctrine? Eeeew!)

This one has to get behind the 12/21/2012 doomsday prediction - http://www.livescience.com/14184-21-doomsday-predictions-apocalypse.html - and the other Armageddon predictions, e.g., http://www.spiritualresearchfoundation.org/articles/id/spiritualresearch/spiritualscience/armageddon . How can we have an economic disaster after the Earth has been nuked, fried by solar flares, invaded by aliens, and repossessed by god? But wait, there's more -- http://www.bible.ca/pre-date-setters.htm .

I predict that the world will end on the day everyone agrees that it will never end. It is based on a corollary of Murphy's Law.

Will your car survive rolling the odometer? If so, 2012 is a safe year, considering it's just rolling the odometer of the Mayan calendar.

At least you didn't grow up with Christian nutters who thought the world would end in 2000. Oh wait, they stopped saying that back in the late 1980's because they didn't want people to remember them as frauds.

A walk down memory land (2000)

Proof that Christians are obsessed with the end of the world.

There's nothing like a good scare tactic to keep people in church.

The "natural use of woman" was (a) breeding stock, (b) subjugated property, (c) sex slave, and (d) property not worthy of a voice in any matter being discussed by men.

1 Peter 3:7...

And more:

http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/christianity_and_women.htm

And even more...

http://www.bible.ca/f-women-speak-in-church.htm

Thanks for that comment. It inspired me to post a snippet of a similar conversation I had months ago, with your links and some others added:

Is it right, however, to lump together those who are skeptical of evolution with those who are skeptical of AGW, particularly CO2-driven AGW ?

Creationists confuse religious faith with falsifiable science. Among the general public, climate-change contrarians (and your average Greenpeace/PETA loony) confuse political affiliation with falsifiable science. In both cases, scientists are much less likely to agree with either claim, and that likelihood decreases with increasing relevance of the scientist's field. That's probably why both groups tend to accuse the scientific community of conspiracy and/or widespread incompetence.

At my blog, the following statement is both legible and has popup titles describing why that link was chosen. Here it is without the links first: "And, in my experience there's a significant overlap between the two groups. Most of their arguments seem to be at similar intellectual and educational levels."

And, in my experience there's a significant overlap between the two groups. Most of their arguments seem to be at similar intellectual and educational lev els.

That's retarded. The only reference to anything like this that I can find is this page [s8int.com] which makes the argument that a certain piece of aztec art bears a resemblance to a tyrannosaurus skull. So yeah... hardly pervasive and hardly convincing to anyone who doesn't already desperately want to believe.

So I guess this page and this page and this page and quite a bit more just don't exist now do they?

fuck, are you using big or something? Because Google presented a crap load on a simple search for artifacts depicting dinosaurs.

No we haven't. The young earth grand canyon meme is debunked nicely here. It also doesn't stand up to some basic critical thinking skills, like if flash flooding carved the grand canyon, how come it left relatively fragile islands of rock standing up in the middle of the canyon in places?

That doesn't debunk anything. It's out dated too. But hey, don't let that stop you. Anyways, check out this, and look for the canyons created by Mt St hellens eruption when dams burst as well as the one in south carolina that happened during/result of a flood. As for the rock islands, the massive flood theories do not damage their existence. They were present in the flood simulations (using actual water and sediment) in the original Nova program. BTW, Nova is not really a creation science organization, your probably not going to be able to discredit them because of a simple god connection.

In order to believe young earth creationism, or ANY kind of age for the earth that's not in the millions or billions of years, you essentially have to throw away a ton of accepted knowledge, like how radioactive isotopes work, how sedimentation happens, plate tectonics, and so on. This includes things that are not only accepted but practically acted upon.

No you don't. You would have to change the relevence of the knowledge, that all. But I'm not asking you to believe the world is not millions or billions of years old. I'm asking you to view the evidence for what it is, support for an interpretation and not a fact that can't be disproven.

Basically science and technology are like a giant pyramid with the coolest crap on top. You can't accept the stuff on top, like say the GPS in your car or a radioisotope powered pacemaker, without implicitly allowing for the fact that all or most of the stuff beneath it is true, like the age of the earth.

See, here is where you are wrong. Have you ever heard the expression "there is more then one way to skin a cat"? Just because something is known to work one way doesn't mean it is the only way or the true way. We make batteries in about 30 different types of processes. we have roughly 50 different types of internal combustion engines and engined that don't run on combustion at all. We can make hydrogen though approximately 15 or more different ways. What you have to understand just because something fits, doesn't mean it happened like that and at any time, evidence could come along to change the entire understanding of what happened. And when you deny that possibility, you have stop doing science and started a religion or something.

So, if Business - Jesus = Theft + Corruption, it follows that Business = Theft + Corruption + Jesus!

Both you and the GP are assuming that Business and Jesus can run together. In fact there are well fundamental incompatibilities between the output Business produces and the input expected by Jesus.

It is worth noting that other claimed incompatibilities are pure FUD.

The problem has been repeatedly highlighted by Jesus developers, and the project lead has recommended uninstalling business and similar proprietary apps. This has been unpopular with Business advocates and probably contributed to his legal difficulties.

The most reliable approach is to use only software meeting the standards set by the Christ Software Foundation. Some people have taken this approach, but they have had to be willing to accept limited access to some codecs.

Some people have managed to run Money while Jesus executes in a separate VM, but this is probably not a good idea. Jesus is really designed to run as a hypervisor.

Apparently the list of books in the bibles is the same, but Roman Catholics believe in the Apocrypha - see http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-orthodox-catholic-christian-bible-books.htm . I thought that those extra books were regarded as part of the Roman Catholic bible, but perhaps not.

You might find this page intriguing:

  http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-trail.htm

Sample:

"Here is a photo of the Paluxy River in Glen Rose Texas. This rapidly flowing river runs through the middle of Dinosaur Valley State Park, famous for its dinosaur tracks. Not as well known is the fact that human tracks have also been found, not only in the same formation, but on the same bedding plane and in some cases overlapping the dinosaur tracks."

Geller reminds me of Peter Popoff http://www.bible.ca/tongues-popoff-39-17Mhz.htm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9w7jHYriFo , W.V. Grant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._V._Grant and other televangelists. Tools and charlatans all, preying on people's ignorance, greed, or desperation. All of them should be jailed for fraud.

http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/ancient/ancient .htm

Do a little reading before you post. There are even fossilized dinosaur tracks with human footprints going through them. http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm

"Human life is a continuum from conception to death."

"Human life" is life that can be identified as being "human". Some collection of cells in a uterus is not "human". And those cells are not self-sustaining, nor are they capable of higher thinking nor are they self-aware.

"Europe will be fully Muslim within a generation or two"

I'm sorry, but you sir are a complete moron. While birth-rates are quite low in Europe, and there is sizable Muslim-minority, it does NOT mean that "Europe will be fully Muslim withing generation or two". It seems that 4.3% of people in Europe are Muslims. And you claim that in "generation or two", 100% of people in Europe will be Muslims? Well, as it happens, the fastest-growing religion in Europe is not Islam, it's Buddhism.

source: http://www.bible.ca/global-religion-statistics-wor ld-christian-encyclopedia.htm

We've had Ice Ages while humanity has populated this earth. There's even been discoveries that humans actually co-existed with dinosaurs. Landmasses that are now land has once been ocean and visa versa.. Some land millions of years ago, is now buried so deep none of us could have a hope of getting there..

Consider the scale you're talking about.. Earth is at least hundreds of million of years old, and over long periods the surface is really boiling when seen in "fast-film".

Something to destroy an advanced civilization, have to be HUGE. Eventually it will wipe out most traces of this civilization, except for the forklore, myths and occational artifacts.

That area, has been what is termed 'Positively Forbidden Territory' for the Western world since the year 1938, which now, in light of what Dr. Chow had to say, was probably not at all coincidental. At any rate, Professor Chi Pu Tei and his students discovered what was first described as a series of caves or caverns, but later admitted to be a complex system of artificial tunnels and underground storerooms. These tunnels are perfectly squared and the walls, ceilings, and floors are highly glazed, as if somehow the passages and rooms were carved by a device emitting heat of such intensity that it simply melted its way into the moun- tains.

Ancient texts, maybe more than 5000 years old in Sanskrit found all over Asia, and especially the areas around India speaks of:

"the holy Indian Sages, the Ramayana for one, tell of "Two storied celestial chariots with many windows" "They roar like off into the sky until they appear like comets." The Mahabharata and various Sanskrit books describe at length these chariots, "powered by winged lighting...it was a ship that soared into the air, flying to both the solar and stellar regions."

There are also references all over the Vedas to wars with missiles being fired on cities both from the land and air, destroying most of the cities, and anti-missile systems protecting said cities.

From A tribute to Hinduism (Mind you, the word Hinduism never existed before some scientists started tagging people that name. Before that, it was just the natural folklore and daily way of living in the areas in the Middle East, shared by people that now call themselves Muslims and others..)

There are many indications that humans knew how to fly, or have had experiences of flying in vehicles. One of the most famous examples being the Nasca Lines of Peru (Warning: This was the site with the best pictures I could find, but it's a bit New Ageish).

If 100% of Latin America were Christian (which it is not) that would still only make up 25% of the total population of Christians world-wide.

South America: 25%
Europe: 23%
Africa: 18%
Russia: 6%
Asia: 14%
North America: 13%
Oceania: 1%

[Catholics] then grew into the largest denomination in the United States, now numbering 52 million, nearly one-fourth of the country's population. Most recently the American church has even begun to wear a Third World face: Hispanics now comprise 25 to 30 percent of American Catholics.

Oh I am aware that one can "explain" these sorts of contradictions by various interpretations of the various bits, I am just pointing out that doing so thereby removes one from the "literal" reading of the work, one is starting to "interpret". Similar interpretations are needed to preserve the "literalness" of the date for the expulsion from Eden and the spread of humanity across the globe, the lack of physical evidence for the flood, etc. It is very difficult being a literalist, as one has to make so many interpretations of the scriptures. In my mind this detracts greatly from the strength of the scriptures as a source of moral and theological knowledge.

The real point is accepting Jesus is the only way the Bible makes that clear. So as long as that is what the Catholics believe than it's better thant he rumors I heard that Baptism is required and that we are saved by works and not grace.

Do not give in to rumors - all of this stuff is available online - try wikipedia or google - that's where I am getting most of it.

Well, YOU may know the only path to salvation, but I put forward to you that your knowledge is based on a restrictive reading of the scriptures. I quote from here: "It is pointed out, however, that Paul declared in Ephesians, Chapter 2, verse 9, "Not of works lest any man should boast". It is true that no man can save himself by his own works, but he must work according to God's plan in order to be saved. We are told in Philippians, Chapter 2, and the last part of verse 12, "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling". Also, James states in James, Chapter 2, verse 24, "Ye see then that by works a man is justified and not by faith only". It is interesting to note that Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord according to Genesis, Chapter 6, verse 8, but that Hebrews, Chapter 11, verse 7, says "By faith Noah being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith". Noah was saved by the grace of God, through faith on his part which prompted him to obey God's commands. A person may be saved from his sins by the grace of God when he believes what God says and when he obeys the Gospel which is God's power unto salvation. Romans, Chapter 1, verse 16."

From this and similar analysis, one quickly comes to the conclusion, that of course one is "saved" by faith in the Lord, but with that statement it is very easy to believe that professing such faith is sufficient. In actual fact you must LIVE that faith. The scriptures are full of things that the faithful should be doing - giving up their cloaks to their neighbours, feeding the least among them, leaving their father and mother to follow Jesus. It is not that Acts without Faith will lead to salvation that Catholic theology professes, but rather Cathlics generally hold that Faith without Acts is, in fact, not Faith.

My only point was that Catholics have some beliefs that could lead someone to believe they are saved when they are not.

I would argue that it is the other way around. Some non-Catholics might have some beliefs that could lead them to think they are saved when they are not.

Which do you think is more likely or troublesome: a) that someone will do good things, without accepting Jesus and yet think that they are going to go to heaven and then be dissapointed when the time comes, or b) that someone will not do good things, and trust that their faith in Jesus/professed acceptance of Jesus will get them into heaven and then be dissapoined when the time comes? In case (a) it seems unlikely that they will think

Infinite pain, no. Differing degrees of suffering exist:

Luke 12:47-48, Matthew 11:24, Mark 12:40, 2 Peter 2:20-21

See http://www.bible.ca/su-hell.htm

Here is an article from one of us "maybe they're not ancestors" camp. Something else you might find interesting. There has been evidence of man co-existing with dinosaurs. So my explanation is that birds and dinosaurs can easily have co-existed. I cannot point to evidence right now, so will not state it to you as proven fact.

If you say anything critical of darwinian evolution around on /. - you'll oft be modded a troll, for example linking the fossils that appear to challenge the darwinian evolution timeline
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i4/di nosaurs.asp
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm

Darwinian evolution is supposed to be a well grounded theory on origin, not a philosophy.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/20 05/05/01/evolutionary_war/

The rise of ID or creationism, can be seen as a challenge to the humanist/atheist adoption of darwinian evolution.

Merely giving a voice to ID supporters, can be dangerous to your career in the scientific community.
http://www.rsternberg.net/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2005/08/18/AR2005081801680.html
http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110006220

There are arguements to be made in favor of teaching ID
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?articl e_id=4761

I take a more dialectic approach, instead of one based on censorship or herd mentality.

John Woodmorappe lists over 350 radiometric dates known to be in error. [Woodmorappe, 1979] He compared the expected age of the material dated with the age obtained by the reporting scientists. The expected age is based on the rock layer from which the sample came, which is based on the specific fossils found in them. He explained that although very common, most discrepant dates are simply excluded from the published reports or explained away.

I would hardly propose these examples are few. It appears they are found on a regular basis and just ignored or other samples are used to fit what evolutionists claim is "historical accurate".

5. It'd matter if I believed in creation. Since I don't, evolution has yet another large gap to explain. The method you are using is so damn near straw-man, I don't know what else to say other than: I do not believe in creation, either. I don't have to "believe" in either, yet the assumption in any debate like this, is that I need to. I don't, I honestly don't care about the issue except with the near religious-like devotion evolutionists have to their cause. I'm rejecting evolution, not accepting creation.
"Belief in a primeval soup on the grounds that no other paradigm is available is an example of the logical fallacy of the false alternative."

6. On this page:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.h tml the potential falsification has a "criticism" of the falsification, probably suggested by "believers" rather than real scientists, to account for instances like mammals "evolving" softshells from reptiles, who had hard shells, which also evolved into birds with hard shells. Yet species of early reptiles had soft shells. So apparently the evolution of the shell is just arbitrary. And that's okay, because it doesn't really falsify evolution to have hard shell species evolve into soft shell and back.

Don't get me wrong, I like this page, but there are some huge problems with it. One of the claims of possible falsification is something we've found already: Rhipsalis is a cacti that is found outside of the Americas, with literally no explanation of how it got to Africa.

Again, missing fossils/records are the problem as argued by evolutionists. Falsification is the problem, as indicated by me. We're "just waiting for the complete fossil record". Now tell me that isn't

where exactly did they come from if the planet is in fact only 6000-odd years old?

here is a fossil of a hat. Obviously its less than 6000 years old.

> And we also know that Peter was the one that failed (ie, denined) Jesus quickest. In what way is thinking he killed Judas silly?

Because he was a coward. His faith in Jesus was shaken, his faith in his own courage had perished, he was on the run for his life and cowered behind locked doors and windows -- the last thing you expect is a blood vendetta against Judas.
And then he met Jesus resurrected - what then is the need for vendetta?

> > "Furthermore, the ice sheet during the Ice Age would have been lower and warmer at the time the snow was building."
> Why?

Well, lower = warmer I imagine.

> > it is almost certain that variability exists at the subseasonal or storm level,
> > at the annual level, and for various longer periodicities (2-year, sunspot, etc.).
> > We certainly must entertain the possibility of misidentifying the deposit of a
> > large storm or a snow dune as an entire year or missing a weak indication of
> > a summer and thus picking a 2-year interval as 1 year."

> > Besides subannual oscillation, other non-precipitation variables such as snow dunes, can add subannual layers.

> That's a big list of objections. Just as well the ice cores are taken from different locations hundreds of miles apart
> to reduce the chance of a freak weather event making a mess of the results.
> You'd almost think the people doing this work were being careful or something!

Where would we be without your brilliant intellect cutting through previously impenetrable problems? You'd (almost) think those (non-creationists) experts raised those warnings just to play with our mind. Almost.
It's a bit hard to correlate layers that are less than paper thick, don't you think? Or can they say: "Aha - both cores have a 11 mm layer, sandwiched between a 7 mm layer, and a 18 mm layer -- a definite pattern."

> BTW, staligmites and other mineral formations show seasonal layers too....
And you were timing the same variation that causes problems in ice cores cannot happen here eh?

They can also form in decades - not millenia or hundreds of thousands of years.
read up

> > The Gospels are clear - Judas hung himself.
> Acts is clear - Judas died in his field after a horrific bursting incident.
But you are muddled. Acts simply says Judas' body burst after "becoming headlong" in his field. It does not say he "died" in that field.

> "Becoming headlong" is not really "he hung himself" or even "he was burried",
Yes, it simply means : "Becoming headlong" - deal with it.

> in fact the translation to "fell" seems like a sensible translation of an otherwise odd passage/phrase.
What? You don't like considering the Greek source? You'd rather take it on faith from a translator?

> Paul was in fact quite worried when he last saw James because
> he had been caught out telling gentiles things he had told James he would not.
Quote chapter and verse .... Paul opposed Peter to his face, because "he was in the wrong" - and Peter came around to his position. James gave Paul "the right hand of fellowship."!

Read this

Even those "who seemed to be something" added nothing to Paul; that is, they exerted no power over his message. In fact, it became obvious to men like Peter, James and John that Paul was preaching the same message to the Gentiles that Peter was preaching to the Jews (Gal. 2:6-10). Peter, James and John "perceived the grace that had been given to" Paul, and so they "gave" him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship." They expressed no desire or influence on Paul to change his message; they only desired that they practice benevolence. To this Paul said: "the very thing wh

Thanks for the positive comment. Hard to get those responses when you post something like I did. :)

There's a lot of stuff that gets repeated and repeated until everyone believes it's true. Simple example: where in Scripture are the "three" wise men recorded? They're not. :) (You might or might not have known that one.)

Here's a study on the last days that might interest you. Popular religious culture (i.e., "Left Behind") nowadays obscures the fact that there are three or four major interpretations of endtimes events from history. The one presented by Left Behind actually only became so dominant in the 20th century, and really not that long ago.

Get a clue, there has been evidence to suggest just that.

Well documented manufactured articles have been found intact in layers of coal such as an obvious hammer. There are several others. Check out malachite man, there are several others. Such artifacts are anomalous findings are rare, but even if Genesis flood accounts for the fossils, you would expect them to be rare.

The question is not "Is there evidence?", the question is "Is there sufficient evidence?" Is the evidence compelling, how does it compare to the opposing evidence? You know, actual scienctific investigation not just misinformed blanket statements re: the science or lack thereof.

I know that the links I referenced are religious sites, but these counter Darwinian examples are much easier to find there. I mentioned 2 examples I know to be well-documented (there are others). As you would expect, both are "explained away" by Darwinians, but creationists prefer the non-Darwinian explanation.

You've still got some definitions confused. You have conflated "evidence that a person possesses faith" with "evidence that God exists."

You are very right about the fact that the phrase "faith alone" DOES occur in the Bible, and the Wikipedia article is wrong.

But "faith alone" is STILL not talking about "blind faith." When Protestants refer to "faith alone," they are referring to their doctrine that you can only be saved through faith/belief, and that there is absolutely NOTHING you can or must do in order to obtain salvation. It has nothing to do with whether the supporting evidence is present or not, or examined or not.

Relevant Bible quotes are: Romans 3:28, Romans 9:32, Galatians 2:16, and Ephesians 2:8-9. The context is not talking about whether faith falls apart when a person tries to investigate God's existence, as in the Douglas Adams quote that started this discussion.

Most Protestants wrongly use these passages to teach "there is nothing you must do to be saved; simply believe." As you have demonstrated, the Bible contradicts this, in the book of James, chapter 2. But it doesn't go on to say what you said it did. ;) "Faith alone," in addition to not being a Bible doctrine, does not mean "blind faith." It means, in the usage of Protestants (who as I have said are are not teaching the way the Bible does) "all you have to do to be saved is believe (have faith)." They use it to mean "faith without action," not "faith without logical proof."

I define true Christianity by proving it against the Bible. The Catholic Church's own Bible condemns them. Size and numbers have nothing to do with it. I'm just identifying true Christianity as those who actually follow the tenets of their religion.

Very quick way to check this: I Timothy 3 states that a bishop must be married. Does the Catholic Church do that?

I guess n-1/n is the percentage of them being wrong (where n is the number of sects, n -> infinite).

Well, Jesus said in the Bible that not many would be saved and also that many who call him Lord would discover on the last day that they were wrong. The Bible further states that there would be false prophets among Christians constantly. So while the math you posted above might be counterintuitive, it is at least consistent with the tenets of the religion.

It should be a simple thing for someone, even one who does not accept the Bible, to compare a church against its teachings and see if they are really the church talked about in the Bible or not. What might be far harder is covering all N churches in one lifetime. :)

I am a Christian.

Here's the thing: original sin is a disgusting idea for the simple fact that it blames descendents of a pair of people 2,000 years down the line, for the actions of those two people (assuming the myth is taking as wholly true).

Agreed, and I believe the "myth" is true. The fact is, Original Sin is not in the Bible and is contradicted by the Bible (in many places like, for example, Ezekiel 18). To go back up a few posts, the original assertion that you would go to hell if you lived a perfect life is just plain WRONG.

For the record, true Christianity does not believe original sin.

I am a Christian.

Here's the thing: original sin is a disgusting idea for the simple fact that it blames descendents of a pair of people 2,000 years down the line, for the actions of those two people (assuming the myth is taking as wholly true).

Agreed, and I believe the "myth" is true. The fact is, Original Sin is not in the Bible and is contradicted by the Bible (in many places like, for example, Ezekiel 18). To go back up a few posts, the original assertion that you would go to hell if you lived a perfect life is just plain WRONG.

For the record, true Christianity does not believe original sin.

Here
Here
HereSeveral of the links were blocked at work for some reason but I had been to them previous and was familiar with the content.

Note that I selected both pro and anti creation sites do demonstrate that modern fossilization is not particularly controversial.

Money can't be protected? Care to tell that to all the banks! And all the guys who write the laws specifically protecting money... Not the best argument I've ever heard starting a rebuttal, I must say :)

It's not the money that's being protected, but the bank's right to it. My argument stands and yours fails.

Again, you're proving your point. I'ts not about geographical closeness, but political and financial.

Policital and financial "closeness" (I'll co-opt your undefined term) are always directly affected by geography.

In those respects, the US is a member of the world and as such has an obligation to at least try to exist with everyone else.

It is trying and succeeding to exist with everyone else. You're actually talking about something other than "existing with everyone else" and not calling a spade a spade.

Before you start saying Islam is a violent religion, I must ask you - have you read the Koran? Obviously not from your reply.

Sura 4:34 encourages wife-beating. Sure, it's a Christian site, and I am certainly not Christian, but their analysis of the issue is good.

So, wife-beating and sexism in the Koran along with Jihad. Yes, Islam encourages violence.

Most other countries are well aware that, like people, they're equal.

History stands against your assertion. How do Russians feel about black and handicapped people? How do the English feel about other Europeans? How do the French feel about other cultures? How do the Japanese compare themselves to the gai-jin ("anyone who is not Japanese")?

In my experience, it's only the USA that thinks like this.

If you hate Americans from the get-go, then it's fitting that you would think of this. By the way, is Americans, not "the USA" who would "think like this".

I'm talking about true patriotism.

"No true Scotsman" fallacy.

Patriotism in the US is not what it is elsewhere in the world, not by a long shot.

And how exactly do you quantify and qualify the patriotism in the USA? You must have some method since it is "not by a long shot" similar to "elsewhere in the world".

Saying the US has unbridled capitalism isn't necessarily a good thing.

Incorrect. Capitalism is moral.

In the process, the needy are more needy than ever, and the gap between rich and poor is growing. If you care for your fellow man, you should be outraged at that.

What if the rich are geting richer because they earned it? Furthermore, there are not just two social classes in the USA. I know it's befitting to your philosophy to think of things in terms of "the rich" and "the poor" and pretend like there is no one in between, but it is not represenative of reality.

Also, saying the US has smart leaders (especially at this time) is pretty laughable.

Laughter is the first refuge of those with nothing intelligent to say.

The very act of putting US troops on foreign soil lead directly to 9/11.

So easy to say, so much harder to show.

Extortionate and immoral practices are common place in the American political world. Again, this boils down to the "We're American, so it's OK" mentality.

It's more like this: "We're American, and these are our interests." In the world of diplomacy, there are no friends, only interests. "Moral" and "immoral" in the realm of diplomacy are defined according to the interests that you support. Are you French? Then that which is in France's intersts is "moral".

Take a look at Iraq - woefull lack of training has meant they're killing themselves and innocents at a startling rate. Hardly the action of a strong military.

Emotional language with no hard facts. How does the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq compare with the occupation and

Your moth example just shows that variation in distribution of existing genetic material. It doesn't show any evolution at all.

The biston betularia must be the most repeated frauduleus claim in biology text books I suppose. For more, read "Piltdown Moth". Anyone taking a course in the philosophy of science will have come accross this as a classic example.

Here's one link that's pretty good.

Here's a Google search for your convenience.

As for Randi's attitude, more power to him! There are too many frauds out there, from Uri Geller to John Edwards, "The Biggest Douche In The Universe!" and they ALL need to be shown up and humiliated in public.

And given all the lies and deception Randi has seen over the years by dishonest fuckers like Geller and Edwards, his abrasive attitude is understandable.

This is getting to be a very tired strawman, so let me put it as simply as I know how: you don't have to ASSUME something is bunk to CONCLUDE that something (say, Peter Popoff's performances, or a pyramid scheme) is bunk. The conclusion may not be silly at all.

Actually, Christians are instructed that their body is "the temple of the Holy Spirit," and that we're not to defile it.
Smoking, or other destructive behavior, is disrespect and defilement.
Here are some other references and reasons.

One of the longest running free-speech issues on the Net has been between the Church of Scientology and the numerous CoS debunking sites such as Xenu.net. The CoS has vigorously pursued anyone who publishes their secret processes on the internet - they are ruthless, fearless, and most importantly to anyone meaning to host something offshore, they have a NAVY (and Tom Cruise to boot!) If you are truly sovereign, then along with the rights of a sovereign nation come the responsiblities - such as defending yourself from intruders. One of the first groups to seek refuge on your haven will be the Scientology resistance, and you will soon be pitted against Ron's Navy.

Which brings me to my question: Do you have any plans on implementing true physical countermeasures, such as phased-array radar, anti-aircraft weaponry, and hardened gun emplacements?