Your argument is akin to saying that since children eventually become adults, childhood experiences never happened. In other words, your lack of understaning of even basic literary knowledge of the Bible (much less the doctrinal or historical aspects) has led you to posit something that makes no sense at all.
For instance, the 10 commandments are already invalidated for Christians.
"A member of the Bush administration leaked the name "
The facts are explicitly not on your side in this statement. This has been reported in every major newspaper and on every news station. It is a matter of easily accessible public record. This makes either your judgement, intelligence, or ethics of dubious value. Though it could be more than one of those together. Go look up the details and facts in the case. Unless of course you are not interested in the facts and would rather continue to spout off things you have made up in your mind.
It is obvoius from your statement and your ignorance you don't live here. Illegals use the emergency rooms in my city as I use my family physician. The medical care they receive is free because it is illegal to refuse them medical care. They clog up the triage and emergency room with sniffles, headaches, and skin irritation that will dissipate in a few days at most. Meanwhile real emergencies have to move around all these people. The care of critically ill patients is degraded due to staff fatigue and delayed due to overcrowding. Meanwhile those that can and do pay for their own care pay hugeley inflated prices for even simple medical procedures due to the non-payment by illegals.
Peope are, however, dying from diseases brought over here by people who have skipped the proper channels. MRSA, resistant TB, and other infectious monsters of the communicable disease world are brought into our states, cities, and increasingly, our hospitals where the infirm, elderly, and very young are ravaged by them. In addition, many MRSA-infected patients will die regardless of how much they pay for treatment.
I have pride in America. We have laws that prevent institutions from taking advantage of underclasses and the downtrodden. This is commendable, noble even. Unfortunately we do not have or do not enforce the laws that protect the majority position as much as we should. Our middle class is resillient and has proven to be resourceful. The result is the abuses that are continually heaped on them by our leaders are expected to be bourne. However, erosion of the middle class through economic overburderning from taxation, legal, and *medical care costs* could sink this country.
For me the "romp" was and is the mystery. For a fertile young teen mind like mine (when I first read it) it was mindcandy at its finest. The mysteries of the book created so many imaginings, and they came so fast and from such unexpected angles, that I can find no better way to describe the flittings of my mind when reading it.
You may not have enjoyed it the same way I did, but I won't hold that against you.;-)
My deepest condolences to his family, friends, and fans. He was one of the first writers I experienced that changed the way I thought and felt about the world in a drastic way.
I can still remember hollowness in my chest from "Childhood's End," the wonder and fear from the "Odysseys", and the rompy fun from "Rama."
Though we can all take some solace from the immortal parts of him that live on in all of his books and in us, his readers, I for one will surely miss him.
Thank you Sir Clarke and peace on your eternal rest.
I know it was a joke, but a pedantic Christian apologist (me!) has to take his moments.
The relevance of the resurection was proof of the claims of Christ that all mankind could share in the inheritance of God. Part of that inheritance was everlasting life, thus the resurection. Another part was a new body, superior to the old one. Other promises were made in the "inheritance" part of the claim that Christ made, but the resurection was an a fortiori argument for all of the other claims, ie. if death could be conquered the other things would be easily done.
Christ's life on Earth was the prototype demonstration of a system of spiritual self sufficience designed by God for the believer in a troubled world. His death and subsequent resurection was the proof that the system worked.
Fortunately those people occupy regions far removed from the US, although they are rapidly populating Western Europe with their children. So much so that Muhammad is about to become the most popular name for male babies in England.
Sadly, the people who believe in these things you mention are trying in every country they inhabit to make people kow-tow to their beliefs. Whether they get compliance through law or violence, it does not seem to matter to them. You may be disregarding them now, but they will soon be disregarding you (maybe even "disposing" of you) in many countries around the world.
In not too long people who used to whine about prayer in schools, Easter eggs, and "Merry Christmas" signs will be whining for their return. The burkhas will make it hard to hear them, but if you listen close...
"you bear the burden of proof for proving to the rest of us that the chair is indeed empty."
Faith and proof don't cohabitate. The only point where they can conceivably intersect is after your own personal death. You can wait all you want, but never fear. That day is coming for all of us.
The first part of your post is spot on. It pulls from the refutation of pascal's wager nicely.
When you started to redefine the word "being" you kinda lost me. Being has none of the connotation you impute to it. Here look at the definition #1:
a: the quality or state of having existence b (1): something conceivable as existing (2): something that actually exists (3): the totality of existing things c: conscious existence : life.
The person using the word in a non-standard and misleading way is you and now maybe the people who have read this. The great part is you don't even stop there. You go on to redefine the word existence and universe as well. Read the definitions and you will see some interesting things that contradict your understanding of the words.
Reading this post reminds me of two things. One is the idea of newspeak. If you control the meaning of words you can control the thoughts of people. In your case, your own misunderstanding of words has led you to a certain viewpoint.
Second I am reminded of a quote from a movie, please excuse the plagarism: "what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul." Biting but apt.
As for evolution, it is as you state. However, due in part to inattention, laziness, and the woeful state of our public schools, evolution is a "belief" to many who claim it as fact. The reason? They have not read and/or do not understand the scientific basis of the theory. How then are they better than someone who believes in God because their parents told them He is real? Science is robust because of repeatability and peer review. Those who lack understanding are just practicing faith in science. They have replaced the frocked priest with the lab coated PhD.
True, faith is not based on empiricism or rationalism. It is a system of perception based on the values of the object of belief. However, in the realm of doctrinal religions, faith can be "correct" and can be as rigorously defined as some scientific laws. In addition rational thought and empiricism, as applied to doctrines become the basis for denominational differences, or what outsiders would call sects. Furthermore, if faith can be neither correct or wrong, hipocrasy would never be perjorative term to people of faith.
Furthermore, as with those that "believe" in evolution, you also have those that have "faith" because someone told them to. However there are people who have read texts like the Bible and see something they can respect and want to emulate or internalize. No one like that, ie. serious about theological studies, refers to God as a "ghost man inna sky" and uses him as an excuse to close the case on further investigations. In truth, the quest to understand the Creator and His creation have provided the impetus to many curious and scientific minds over the centuries. Atheism is not a requirement for curiosity or even good science. Characterizing all those with faith as simpletons that hide behind God to remain ignorant is, an you so aptly phrased, "an immature thought process that by the year 2008 we should ALL have progressed far beyond."
No one has a "right" to speed. I made the decision to speed based on the circumstances.
I wasn't traveling faster than everyone around me, but I was traveling faster than a few miles over the limit. I live in the third largest city in the US. The average freeway speed in non-rush hour traffic regularly exceeds 75 mph. Most of the freeways have between 4 and 8 lanes each way, depending on the area. If you haven't learned how to safely drive 85mph on an 8 lane highway you should go back to all your "very professional instructors" and get your money back.
How can you reasonably have anyone believe that being upset will make someone forget how to drive and become a danger to themselves and others? Your assumption that I, or anyone for that matter, will become uncharacteristically inattentive and downright dangerous under personal duress is pedantic and silly. You can reference any number of articles on the internet about driver safety and automobile crashes. Driver impairment due to inatention, eyesight problems, tiredness, or intoxication come up frequently as causes of accidents. Nowhere have I found "emotional upset" to be a significant factor. Find me a link where it is a significant factor in automobile crashes and I will accede to your notion that I am a better driver than "every other person who drives a car on public roads." Otherwise, realize if heightened emotional states were a major cause of traffic accidents, our freeways would be litterd with thousands of additional accidents daily.
If we are talking about homework here then the answer is to credit homework as an exceptionally small part of the total grade. If you cannot watch the student do the work there is no way to know where he got the answers.
For instance, my dad has 3 degrees and, when I was in college, actually used the math, chemistry, and computer skills from his degrees in his job every day. Just about any question in a class pertaining to math, chemistry, or computer science could be answered off the cuff by my dad. I, in turn, could potentially (and sometimes did) copy it down and turn it in. It's the same thing as this "study group" except I didn't have to use an internet connection.
Now, if the aim of teaching is to teach, and the aim of grades is to see if the student is learning, then you need weight testing as the overwhelming majority of the grades. As you said, incorporate the idea of testing based on assimilation of knowledge, not just memorization, because that is key as well. Then all you have to do is monitor the testing area for cheaters. Problem solved.
I do agree wholeheartedly with making the student want to learn. However, in the case of some teachers and students, that gap will never be bridged. Some history professors I studied under will never be more than walking authoratative sources who have overwritten the personality and creativitity sectors of their cortex in order to retain more encyclopedic knowledge of their chosen area of minutiae. Furthermore, some students already know what you are teaching and, therefore, will never be entertained by your inadvertent "review." Both can't be helped.
You don't know me. You cannot make assumptions about my driving skill, ability to concentrate, or compartmentalize. There are not many drivers *just* *like* *me*. Factually, I have been to more driving schools, track events, and car control classes than probably anyone you have ever met outside of professional racing.
I do not talk on the phone while driving. I do not eat or drink while driving. I require near silence from my passengers. I also require that all passengers are belted in before starting my vehicle. I only drive vehicles with excellent visibility, maneuverability, braking, and acceleration even though they may cost me more. I have been driving for 20 years and have only had 1 accident, a very minor one, and that was the first week I was driving.
Save your comments for someone texting on their cell phone while driving. I pay full attention while on the road, bordering on paranoia, and my self control and control of my vehicle are superb. My driving record shows it.
How can someone going faster than you cause you to slow down? If someone moves over in front of you and slows that is one thing. However, removing rare road-rage situations, people who move over in front of you are generally going faster than you. You don't have to brake suddenly unless you are being dramatic; just let off the gas a bit if anything.
Besides, if they do have to suddenly slow down because of taffic it is a moot point. You were already in a traffic jam to begin with and you are just complaining about someone "cutting in line." FYI, the rest of us call that a "lane change." I am curios if you are one of those people who flash their brights and honk their horns when somone changes lanes 3-4 car lengths in front of them.
Lastly, if you RTFA you would realize that there were no "aggressive" drivers in the simulation. So what you just did was hold up a sign that says in big letters "I didn't RTFA" and in smaller letters below that, "and I'm whiney."
Your self righteous attitude is the cause of hundreds of lost hours of time for people all over the world. Instead of trying to be a one-sided-Buddha, teaching everyone patience, why not express some compassion and move over for faster moving traffic. Plus, if you are as patient as you wish other people to be you won't mind hopping into the slow lane for a few seconds.
Of course if you are motivated by some other less honorable sentiments you will continue to act as you do and feel justified and prideful about it.
Also, be aware that there are varying circumstances that may cause someone to drive faster than you. Your statement that it is because of some dissolusioned consumer fantasy belies your presupposition that the people who drive faster than you are somehow inferior to you. Believing a lie and then becoming irrationally angry with you because you show them the truth of the world makes an easy straw man to flatten. However, consider that you might be stopping someone from reaching an important destination in an appointed time. Like the time my father was in the hospital. His respiratory doctor called me and said he was not breathing without assistance and that I had very little time to get there to see him before the DNR orders took effect. I was across town at work and had no idea if I was going to get to see my father alive ever again. I cannot tell you how frustrating it was to deal with people *just* *like* *you* as I made my way to see if my father was still alive, to talk to me one last time.
But hey, one thing I have learned is that people act as they feel they must. Compelled is a good word. People who drive faster than me, I move over for them. People who drive slower than me, I just wait till I can pass them. Understanding that they have their own internal motivations that I probably do not understand makes it easier to live and let live. When I catch myself assigning characteristics, thoughts, and motivations to people driving near me I just take a deep breath and realize that I don't know why they are doing what they are doing and it is best to work cooperatively with people, even if I have never met them.
Simple solution your problem with tailgaters: Move over to the right or speed up. If you are being tailgated you are probably in the middle or left lane and driving too slow. Slower traffic keep right. That means you.
You just summed up most of the incorrect things that people who don't like Christianity think about the Bible. However ti could benefit from the part about the bearded dude in the sky, though. You were modded funny because people think it disparages Christianity and makes Christians look foolish, I think it's funny because it is so silly compared to what the Bible actually says.
To further reinforce your point consider the vehement and sometimes downright nasty disagreements that seperate the denominations of Christianity in the US. If creationism is taught in schools, which denomination's version will be taught? Do Baptists want thir kids taught creationist principles by a Mormon?
Even the book these people profess to believe in tells them, as parents, to take responsibility for the "spiritual" education of thier children. Passing the buck to a government run public school system is an abdication of duty to their professed diety.
In short, these people arguing for creationism in schools are violating the very principles creationism is supposed to come from. It is very little wonder they cannot be swayed by logical arguments about science. They aren't even consistent to the beliefs they tell everyone else they follow.
Who says they have to be "advanced extraterrestrials." Why don't we just make sure we allow for the possibility that Jesus and the FSM have gotten together and made a more powerful laser on the far side of Mercury.
They are not extraterrestrials but there is just as much evidence of their existence (maybe more!) as there is for extraterrestrials.
Besides, even if there are advanced extraterrestrials out there, if they don't have sharks and popcorn why would they invent lasers in the first place?
I once read the distribution of planets/planetary mass in our solar system is analogous to the emission spectra of hydrogen. If this is the case, there is the possibility the solar system we inhabit is a repeatable pattern based on some very basic laws. This new planetary system's layout seems to confirm this.
Extrapolation from this basic idea leads to a couple of conjecutres. One: even the elemental composition and structure (rocky, gaseous, etc.) of the planets themselves could be due to this. Two: The conditions necessary for life could be the result of this distribution of mass.
A long chain of possibilities. Exciting nonetheless.
Its sad when my psychotic ramblings are proven true time and again. It's like everyone in the whole world has gone crazy. The greatest example being our representatives in our current congress.
Just observe and take notes. Over time patterns emerge that are hard to reconcile with the self-stated goals and ideals of the elected. Constant bickering and outright vituperation seems to dominate the relations between "our" two parties. Wedge issues are thrown around, stirring the masses and polarizing the people, aligning them behind their favorite flavor of politician. Yet, when civil rights are under seige or hanging in the balance you can rely on one thing and one thing only. BOTH parties will vote TOGETHER in a manner that betrays the people who elected them, their oath of office, and the constitution itself.
Slashdot Mirror
Your argument is akin to saying that since children eventually become adults, childhood experiences never happened. In other words, your lack of understaning of even basic literary knowledge of the Bible (much less the doctrinal or historical aspects) has led you to posit something that makes no sense at all.
For instance, the 10 commandments are already invalidated for Christians.
"A member of the Bush administration leaked the name "
The facts are explicitly not on your side in this statement. This has been reported in every major newspaper and on every news station. It is a matter of easily accessible public record. This makes either your judgement, intelligence, or ethics of dubious value. Though it could be more than one of those together. Go look up the details and facts in the case. Unless of course you are not interested in the facts and would rather continue to spout off things you have made up in your mind.
"As a dutch colored guy"
What color is dutch, exatly?
"your country"
It is obvoius from your statement and your ignorance you don't live here. Illegals use the emergency rooms in my city as I use my family physician. The medical care they receive is free because it is illegal to refuse them medical care. They clog up the triage and emergency room with sniffles, headaches, and skin irritation that will dissipate in a few days at most. Meanwhile real emergencies have to move around all these people. The care of critically ill patients is degraded due to staff fatigue and delayed due to overcrowding. Meanwhile those that can and do pay for their own care pay hugeley inflated prices for even simple medical procedures due to the non-payment by illegals.
Peope are, however, dying from diseases brought over here by people who have skipped the proper channels. MRSA, resistant TB, and other infectious monsters of the communicable disease world are brought into our states, cities, and increasingly, our hospitals where the infirm, elderly, and very young are ravaged by them. In addition, many MRSA-infected patients will die regardless of how much they pay for treatment.
I have pride in America. We have laws that prevent institutions from taking advantage of underclasses and the downtrodden. This is commendable, noble even. Unfortunately we do not have or do not enforce the laws that protect the majority position as much as we should. Our middle class is resillient and has proven to be resourceful. The result is the abuses that are continually heaped on them by our leaders are expected to be bourne. However, erosion of the middle class through economic overburderning from taxation, legal, and *medical care costs* could sink this country.
For me the "romp" was and is the mystery. For a fertile young teen mind like mine (when I first read it) it was mindcandy at its finest. The mysteries of the book created so many imaginings, and they came so fast and from such unexpected angles, that I can find no better way to describe the flittings of my mind when reading it.
;-)
You may not have enjoyed it the same way I did, but I won't hold that against you.
My deepest condolences to his family, friends, and fans. He was one of the first writers I experienced that changed the way I thought and felt about the world in a drastic way.
I can still remember hollowness in my chest from "Childhood's End," the wonder and fear from the "Odysseys", and the rompy fun from "Rama."
Though we can all take some solace from the immortal parts of him that live on in all of his books and in us, his readers, I for one will surely miss him.
Thank you Sir Clarke and peace on your eternal rest.
Buttercup: Wesley, what about the HoUSS'es?!?!
Wesley: Humanoids of Particularly Small Size? I don't think they exist.
I know it was a joke, but a pedantic Christian apologist (me!) has to take his moments.
The relevance of the resurection was proof of the claims of Christ that all mankind could share in the inheritance of God. Part of that inheritance was everlasting life, thus the resurection. Another part was a new body, superior to the old one. Other promises were made in the "inheritance" part of the claim that Christ made, but the resurection was an a fortiori argument for all of the other claims, ie. if death could be conquered the other things would be easily done.
Christ's life on Earth was the prototype demonstration of a system of spiritual self sufficience designed by God for the believer in a troubled world. His death and subsequent resurection was the proof that the system worked.
Fortunately those people occupy regions far removed from the US, although they are rapidly populating Western Europe with their children. So much so that Muhammad is about to become the most popular name for male babies in England.
Sadly, the people who believe in these things you mention are trying in every country they inhabit to make people kow-tow to their beliefs. Whether they get compliance through law or violence, it does not seem to matter to them. You may be disregarding them now, but they will soon be disregarding you (maybe even "disposing" of you) in many countries around the world.
In not too long people who used to whine about prayer in schools, Easter eggs, and "Merry Christmas" signs will be whining for their return. The burkhas will make it hard to hear them, but if you listen close...
"you bear the burden of proof for proving to the rest of us that the chair is indeed empty."
Faith and proof don't cohabitate. The only point where they can conceivably intersect is after your own personal death. You can wait all you want, but never fear. That day is coming for all of us.
The first part of your post is spot on. It pulls from the refutation of pascal's wager nicely.
When you started to redefine the word "being" you kinda lost me. Being has none of the connotation you impute to it. Here look at the definition #1:
a: the quality or state of having existence b (1): something conceivable as existing (2): something that actually exists (3): the totality of existing things c: conscious existence : life.
The person using the word in a non-standard and misleading way is you and now maybe the people who have read this. The great part is you don't even stop there. You go on to redefine the word existence and universe as well. Read the definitions and you will see some interesting things that contradict your understanding of the words.
Reading this post reminds me of two things. One is the idea of newspeak. If you control the meaning of words you can control the thoughts of people. In your case, your own misunderstanding of words has led you to a certain viewpoint.
Second I am reminded of a quote from a movie, please excuse the plagarism: "what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul." Biting but apt.
As for evolution, it is as you state. However, due in part to inattention, laziness, and the woeful state of our public schools, evolution is a "belief" to many who claim it as fact. The reason? They have not read and/or do not understand the scientific basis of the theory. How then are they better than someone who believes in God because their parents told them He is real? Science is robust because of repeatability and peer review. Those who lack understanding are just practicing faith in science. They have replaced the frocked priest with the lab coated PhD.
True, faith is not based on empiricism or rationalism. It is a system of perception based on the values of the object of belief. However, in the realm of doctrinal religions, faith can be "correct" and can be as rigorously defined as some scientific laws. In addition rational thought and empiricism, as applied to doctrines become the basis for denominational differences, or what outsiders would call sects. Furthermore, if faith can be neither correct or wrong, hipocrasy would never be perjorative term to people of faith.
Furthermore, as with those that "believe" in evolution, you also have those that have "faith" because someone told them to. However there are people who have read texts like the Bible and see something they can respect and want to emulate or internalize. No one like that, ie. serious about theological studies, refers to God as a "ghost man inna sky" and uses him as an excuse to close the case on further investigations. In truth, the quest to understand the Creator and His creation have provided the impetus to many curious and scientific minds over the centuries. Atheism is not a requirement for curiosity or even good science. Characterizing all those with faith as simpletons that hide behind God to remain ignorant is, an you so aptly phrased, "an immature thought process that by the year 2008 we should ALL have progressed far beyond."
No one has a "right" to speed. I made the decision to speed based on the circumstances.
I wasn't traveling faster than everyone around me, but I was traveling faster than a few miles over the limit. I live in the third largest city in the US. The average freeway speed in non-rush hour traffic regularly exceeds 75 mph. Most of the freeways have between 4 and 8 lanes each way, depending on the area. If you haven't learned how to safely drive 85mph on an 8 lane highway you should go back to all your "very professional instructors" and get your money back.
How can you reasonably have anyone believe that being upset will make someone forget how to drive and become a danger to themselves and others? Your assumption that I, or anyone for that matter, will become uncharacteristically inattentive and downright dangerous under personal duress is pedantic and silly. You can reference any number of articles on the internet about driver safety and automobile crashes. Driver impairment due to inatention, eyesight problems, tiredness, or intoxication come up frequently as causes of accidents. Nowhere have I found "emotional upset" to be a significant factor. Find me a link where it is a significant factor in automobile crashes and I will accede to your notion that I am a better driver than "every other person who drives a car on public roads." Otherwise, realize if heightened emotional states were a major cause of traffic accidents, our freeways would be litterd with thousands of additional accidents daily.
If we are talking about homework here then the answer is to credit homework as an exceptionally small part of the total grade. If you cannot watch the student do the work there is no way to know where he got the answers.
For instance, my dad has 3 degrees and, when I was in college, actually used the math, chemistry, and computer skills from his degrees in his job every day. Just about any question in a class pertaining to math, chemistry, or computer science could be answered off the cuff by my dad. I, in turn, could potentially (and sometimes did) copy it down and turn it in. It's the same thing as this "study group" except I didn't have to use an internet connection.
Now, if the aim of teaching is to teach, and the aim of grades is to see if the student is learning, then you need weight testing as the overwhelming majority of the grades. As you said, incorporate the idea of testing based on assimilation of knowledge, not just memorization, because that is key as well. Then all you have to do is monitor the testing area for cheaters. Problem solved.
I do agree wholeheartedly with making the student want to learn. However, in the case of some teachers and students, that gap will never be bridged. Some history professors I studied under will never be more than walking authoratative sources who have overwritten the personality and creativitity sectors of their cortex in order to retain more encyclopedic knowledge of their chosen area of minutiae. Furthermore, some students already know what you are teaching and, therefore, will never be entertained by your inadvertent "review." Both can't be helped.
You don't know me. You cannot make assumptions about my driving skill, ability to concentrate, or compartmentalize. There are not many drivers *just* *like* *me*. Factually, I have been to more driving schools, track events, and car control classes than probably anyone you have ever met outside of professional racing.
I do not talk on the phone while driving. I do not eat or drink while driving. I require near silence from my passengers. I also require that all passengers are belted in before starting my vehicle. I only drive vehicles with excellent visibility, maneuverability, braking, and acceleration even though they may cost me more. I have been driving for 20 years and have only had 1 accident, a very minor one, and that was the first week I was driving.
Save your comments for someone texting on their cell phone while driving. I pay full attention while on the road, bordering on paranoia, and my self control and control of my vehicle are superb. My driving record shows it.
How can someone going faster than you cause you to slow down? If someone moves over in front of you and slows that is one thing. However, removing rare road-rage situations, people who move over in front of you are generally going faster than you. You don't have to brake suddenly unless you are being dramatic; just let off the gas a bit if anything.
Besides, if they do have to suddenly slow down because of taffic it is a moot point. You were already in a traffic jam to begin with and you are just complaining about someone "cutting in line." FYI, the rest of us call that a "lane change." I am curios if you are one of those people who flash their brights and honk their horns when somone changes lanes 3-4 car lengths in front of them.
Lastly, if you RTFA you would realize that there were no "aggressive" drivers in the simulation. So what you just did was hold up a sign that says in big letters "I didn't RTFA" and in smaller letters below that, "and I'm whiney."
Your self righteous attitude is the cause of hundreds of lost hours of time for people all over the world. Instead of trying to be a one-sided-Buddha, teaching everyone patience, why not express some compassion and move over for faster moving traffic. Plus, if you are as patient as you wish other people to be you won't mind hopping into the slow lane for a few seconds.
Of course if you are motivated by some other less honorable sentiments you will continue to act as you do and feel justified and prideful about it.
Also, be aware that there are varying circumstances that may cause someone to drive faster than you. Your statement that it is because of some dissolusioned consumer fantasy belies your presupposition that the people who drive faster than you are somehow inferior to you. Believing a lie and then becoming irrationally angry with you because you show them the truth of the world makes an easy straw man to flatten. However, consider that you might be stopping someone from reaching an important destination in an appointed time. Like the time my father was in the hospital. His respiratory doctor called me and said he was not breathing without assistance and that I had very little time to get there to see him before the DNR orders took effect. I was across town at work and had no idea if I was going to get to see my father alive ever again. I cannot tell you how frustrating it was to deal with people *just* *like* *you* as I made my way to see if my father was still alive, to talk to me one last time.
But hey, one thing I have learned is that people act as they feel they must. Compelled is a good word. People who drive faster than me, I move over for them. People who drive slower than me, I just wait till I can pass them. Understanding that they have their own internal motivations that I probably do not understand makes it easier to live and let live. When I catch myself assigning characteristics, thoughts, and motivations to people driving near me I just take a deep breath and realize that I don't know why they are doing what they are doing and it is best to work cooperatively with people, even if I have never met them.
Simple solution your problem with tailgaters: Move over to the right or speed up. If you are being tailgated you are probably in the middle or left lane and driving too slow. Slower traffic keep right. That means you.
Have a nice day!
"...because it does not (and cannot) offer any predictive power."
This is not true. If the rapture occurs, Christ returns, or/or you go to heaven/hell after you die then creationism does have predictive power.
In fact, the answer has already been given to everyone who is now dead, they just can't tell us. The dead, however, "know" in one sense or another.
You just summed up most of the incorrect things that people who don't like Christianity think about the Bible. However ti could benefit from the part about the bearded dude in the sky, though. You were modded funny because people think it disparages Christianity and makes Christians look foolish, I think it's funny because it is so silly compared to what the Bible actually says.
To further reinforce your point consider the vehement and sometimes downright nasty disagreements that seperate the denominations of Christianity in the US. If creationism is taught in schools, which denomination's version will be taught? Do Baptists want thir kids taught creationist principles by a Mormon?
Even the book these people profess to believe in tells them, as parents, to take responsibility for the "spiritual" education of thier children. Passing the buck to a government run public school system is an abdication of duty to their professed diety.
In short, these people arguing for creationism in schools are violating the very principles creationism is supposed to come from. It is very little wonder they cannot be swayed by logical arguments about science. They aren't even consistent to the beliefs they tell everyone else they follow.
Who says they have to be "advanced extraterrestrials." Why don't we just make sure we allow for the possibility that Jesus and the FSM have gotten together and made a more powerful laser on the far side of Mercury.
They are not extraterrestrials but there is just as much evidence of their existence (maybe more!) as there is for extraterrestrials.
Besides, even if there are advanced extraterrestrials out there, if they don't have sharks and popcorn why would they invent lasers in the first place?
I once read the distribution of planets/planetary mass in our solar system is analogous to the emission spectra of hydrogen. If this is the case, there is the possibility the solar system we inhabit is a repeatable pattern based on some very basic laws. This new planetary system's layout seems to confirm this.
Extrapolation from this basic idea leads to a couple of conjecutres. One: even the elemental composition and structure (rocky, gaseous, etc.) of the planets themselves could be due to this. Two: The conditions necessary for life could be the result of this distribution of mass.
A long chain of possibilities. Exciting nonetheless.
The jocks and normals that chided and persecuted him throughout his childhood and highschool years, of course.
He doesn't even have to worry about colatteral damage with the like-minded nerdy souls he identifies with. All of them use Linux!
Its sad when my psychotic ramblings are proven true time and again. It's like everyone in the whole world has gone crazy. The greatest example being our representatives in our current congress.
Just observe and take notes. Over time patterns emerge that are hard to reconcile with the self-stated goals and ideals of the elected. Constant bickering and outright vituperation seems to dominate the relations between "our" two parties. Wedge issues are thrown around, stirring the masses and polarizing the people, aligning them behind their favorite flavor of politician. Yet, when civil rights are under seige or hanging in the balance you can rely on one thing and one thing only. BOTH parties will vote TOGETHER in a manner that betrays the people who elected them, their oath of office, and the constitution itself.