but they knew it was their duty to rid the world of a dangerous tyrant and an enemy that treacherously attacked Pearl Harbor. It was not the Republicans that were in power then. Now, when the hour has come to get rid of an enemy that treacherously attacked in NY and Washingto DC, many are balking at the cost.
Nobody is balking at the cost of doing this.
What every patriotic American (i.e. ones who actually do their duty to be informed citizens rather than subjects) balks at is the fact that we are involved in a war in a country that didn't have a damn thing to do with the attacks on us while Bush is using our fucking tax dollars to help fund commercials promoting the country that did actually attack us (Saudi Arabia).
It's really dishonest of you to try and compare the fiasco we are involved in to WW2. A valid comparison would have been if Japan bombed us and then we invaded China.
Freedom has always been costly in terms of lives and money and it seems that the younger generation is less willing to pay the price.
The younger generation is no less willing to pay the price for freedom. What they are less willing to do is to die to provide benefits to GE, Halliburton, Bechtel, and various other war mongering corporations while providing no benefit to themselves or their country.
They are not willing to die for the lie that the Iraq war is. We are there not to promote freedom or democracy or any of the other lies that only the most ignorant could possibly believe. Now it's clear that only an extremely ignorant person could believe that because it isn't even the reasons we were given. So many people in this country are so cowardly and ignorant that they have completely blocked out the fact that the only reason the Iraq war had any support in the first place is that Bush flat out lied that they posed an immediate and immenent threat to the US. Now this has been proven to be a lie and it has been proven that Bush knew full well that it was a lie.
The only reasons that he currently has any support at all are that too many people have a greater loyalty to their party than to their country. I.E. they are so incredibly cowardly and lacking in integrity that they can not admit that they were wrong and do the honorable thing. The only other major reason that Bush has any support is because of all the people in this country who think that they are Christian, but are too ignorant to even know what that word means. Anybody who thinks that Bush is a Christian is dumber than a bag of rocks.
What these people really want and Bush has given them is somebody to promote their petty ignorant hatreds and prejudices. He gives them somebody who tells trhem that it is good for them to impose their beliefs on others at the point of a gun regardless that that is directly contrary to what this country at one time stood for.
So it really isn't surprising that not many people want to go die to help tear down every good thing this country used to stand for.
The really sad thing is that these ignorant hate monhgering religious zealots are exactly what this country was founded to get away from. They always talk about how America was founded by Christians who were trying to escape persecution, but they ignore the simple fact that makes the pseperation of church and state an absolute necessity for a free society to exist:
The Christians were the ones doing the oppression in the first place. Now they are doing it here and now. It's sad that they are so ignorant and deluded that they fail to recognize that religious rule has never once in the history of the world led to anything good.
You say I am ridiculous for calling it hypocritical.... To ignore a line of research because it does not fit the hypothesis you think is correct is hypocrisy.
You are saying that just because you believe that something is true that everybody in the world should treat that as if it were reasonable. You call everybody hypocritical because they don't.
I am now postulating that a green alligator with a foot fetish created all of the universe except for Jupiter which was created by me.
You are a hypocrite by your own definition if you do not put my "theory" on exactly the same level of credibility as your god.
That is exactly what you are saying and that is exactly what I am calling ridiculous. Are you saying it is not ridiculous?
I am considered "stupid" because I don't believe all their theories. Theories are also just beliefs until they can be proven yet they treat them as if they should be blatantly obvious to any "smart" person and hence since you don't believe in them you are stupid.. dumb... ignorant...uniformed...etc.
Theories are not beliefs and they are never proven. How can you expect anybody to take you seriously at all when you clearly don't even understand the basis of the subject you are tryingto jump in on?
There are facts. The world is here, we are on it, and a lot of other things are on it. This happened somehow. All the evidence points to the world having been here a long time before people arrived and there were various other species which were here before us and are no longer here.
Now, that evolution happens is not disputed by one single sane individual in the world. How could it be? Have you ever seen a dog? A Seedless watermelon? Anti-biotic resistant bacteria?
These are all absolute 100% positive proof that evolution does happen.
Now where the Theory of Evolution comes in is in trying to provide a reasonable explanation of how life developed from where it was long before people were on this rock and where it is now in a manner that is consistent with the facts. That's it.
Nobody is trying to claim that it's finished. Nobody is trying to claim that it is some sort of absolute truth.
Now, since you know nothing about the actual theory, and you are making ridiculous claims about it which are 100% wrong, that is why people thinnk you sound stupid when you comment on it. What you do not get is that it isn't a question of "belief". That is religion. Science is about coming up with ideas and then testing them.
Thank scientists for cars, electricity, modern agriculture, computers and pretty much everything else you see besides fields mountains etc. What do you have that we can thank religion for?
How many years ago was it that physicists laughed at for asking if gravity operated faster than the speed of light. Now we know an answer because finally someone didn't just laugh... they made several expirements to test just that.
Which is, again, completely irrelevant to what you are talking about.
That is a valid scientific question which is testable and falsifiable.
The existence or non existence of your invisible magical friend is neither of these.
Regardless of which it is, it has no possible bearing on anything. It provides no useful answers to anything.
Now were your god the type to actually step up and show himself then this would be different and would make the point moot.
Since your god has chosen to make himself completely useless, unapproachable, and undetectable, there is no difference whatsoever between him existing and him not existing. Well until you die that is. And then he sends me to burn because he created me not to accept things just because 5000 years ago some desert nomads wrote up some myths because he, like, totally loves me infinitely.
Well sorry that I happen to be working from memory on research that I saw ignored over 10+ years ago. Doesn't i
There is no need for a specific prayer time in school. However, if a student needs a certain time to pray, they should be allowed that.
Are you saying that they are not allowed this? I wasn't aware that anybody cared if some people wanted to pray wherever they want to. The only issue I was aware of was people trying to force prayer time on everybody.
I think you need to loosen your tinfoil hat. I am not a Catholic and do not follow their doctrine.
What tinfoil hat? The fact is that the new testament was put together by the catholic church to promote their own agenda using texts from hundreds of years before to hundreds of years after Jesus. Were these facts, critical to an accurate understanding of that religion, taught in your class? Do you think they would be allowed to be taught anywhere in America?
I already agreed that learning about various religions is a good experience, my issue was whether an accurate picture would be painted.
My simple reply is only this... I do not call scientists "uniformed radicallists" or any other such term just because I don't believe all of their theories.
I'm not sure what your point is. I said nothing of the sort.
Dismissing me as someone with lesser intellect because I believe in God and ignoring the hints in other scientific research that maybe some parts of this "god" thing are correct is idiocy at best and damnable at worst.
Again, I did nothing of the sort. Your persecution complex is showing again. I'm beginning to believe that you are actually crazy though since you seem incapable of understanding what other people are saying. Further you seem to feel that reality and the facts are working against you. I do feel bad for you.
You are the one accusing people of being hypocrites because they don't give any idea you put forward as equally valid as every other idea.
Further, there are no hints of any sort outside of the bible and the people who believe in it that any of the god stuff has any basis in reality whatsoever. How is your god any more likely than a purple unicorn? Who made your god? What actual useful knowledge is gained by postulating such a thing?
If you have a problem, take it up with your god. He is presumably capable of having provided some evidence for his existence rather than turning all of creation into an idiotic game of "whoever believes whatever a so-called holy person tells them without question even when it contradicts reality wins and everyone else burns".
The fact that you would consider a thing which would be so petty deserving of worship is extremely bizarre to those of us who don't. If your god actually exists, I would consider him a childish, immature, little prankster regardless of whether he had the power to create the universe or not.
With his silly little games, he is worthy of nothing but contempt IMHO.
Everyone in the world seems to descend from a single male and female couple approximately 4500-5000 years ago.
You're showing your ignorance again. You have no clue what the hell you are talking about nd you are just making yourself look like an idiot. They didn't trace people back to a couple, they traced back a male line and a female line, but they didn't even live at the same time and one lived far longer ago than 5000 years.
So please don't act like you're quoting something when you are loosly referencing it and then making up lies about what it said. Is your gos truly so pathetic that he needs you to stoop to such levels?
I am so sick of hearing this completely ignorant and idiotic lie being spread by people who are so insecure in their faith that they need to try and drag everybody else down to their level.
A theism without belief in a god.
You were born an atheist, I was born an atheist and everybody else in the entire history of the world was born an atheist.
People who believe in a god made an active decision at some point in their life to blindly and without evidence of any sort whatsoever start believing in some god.
I have seen zero evidence for any all powerful being, and the Judeo Christian is in fact logically inconsistent. All knowing all powerful and good is a fallacy. Further to accept that god, you have to take as gospel that he loves you, and wants you to believe in him but the only way to get on his good side is to believe blindly or he will torture you forever.
The very idea that a being who could create the universe is hung up on whether or not you will accept his existence without proof is patently ridiculous.
The idea that he made us the way we are and then said he'd fry us for eternity if we acted in accordance with that design but he's really loving so much so that in order to forgive us for acting the way he made us he would torture and murder his own son is so utterly ridiculous that were it not shoved down the throats of little children from birth, it would have died out a long time ago.
So believing insane, inconsistent things like that is a religion. Looking at it rationally and deciding that it doesn't make sense is not in any way.
the main point is that there is a HUGE amount that science doesn't know and to dismiss the fact that an omnipotent God could have created it just because they can make theories to say how it could have been done otherwise is hypocritical. To say you are searching for the truth and dismiss one avenue of research because you arn't comfortable with the possible existence of a "god" figure is stupid at best and damnable at worst.
The problem with this is that if people acted like this then no progress would ever be possible.
Here's how this works (or doesn't more to the point). Well, here's a theory that fits all the evidence and if true would predict that such and such is true. What do you know, such and such is true etc.
Well. It could have been the Judeo Christian God doing it and hiding his existence just to fuck with us. Hey, you're right... and it could have happenned because an invisible purple unicorn that enjoys probing its own butt with its horn made it so.
Hey, you're right...... and it could have been because the tooth fairy made it so.
And on and on and on forever.
And all of these competing theories are on exactly equal footing (except the first of course which actually provided new useful information). There is no rational reason whatsoever to choose one over the other.
So do you accept the unicorn and tooth fairy theories as every bit as good explanations as the god thing? If not, then you are by your own logic guilty of hypocrisy.
Religion is not an avenue of research. It is something that you have chosen to believe for whatever reasons you have, but none of those reasons are rational for if they were there would be one religion and no atheists.
Now, the fact that you are operating from the assumption that you know absolute truth even though there exists no possible way to justify your position over that of the tooth fairy puts you in a mind set where you are not capable of addressing the subject rationally.
That is why you keep repeating such ridiculous things like dismissing your beliefs is hypocritical. If you dismiss anybody's beliefs, or even give them one less iota of credibility than your argument dictates that you are hypocritical.
What is wrong with a few minutes to allow kids to pray or not to pray?
Because what happens in reality is that there are a few minutes to pray or see who the "evil heathen non-believers" are so that they can be singled out for later oppression. School is supposed to be for learning. Kids can pray on their own time if they want to (or more acurately because that is what their parents told them they're supposed to do with absofuckingly no actual facts presented just this is the truth believe it or burn.).
The only purpose in trying to shove prayer time into school is to try and force it into the faces of those who don't want it or to weed out those who don't conform to that particular system.
When I was in high school back in the late 1980's (I graduated in 1991), we had a history class that studied WORLD RELIGION. No one forced us to "worship" any God/god. We were just taught about various different religions, and IMO, it was an excellent class. If we are going to make a kids take a biology class, what is wrong with teaching a class on world religion (note: not any one specific religion)?
That is a completely differnt subject and one on which we agree. There is nothing wrong with learning about the history of religion. The only problem is that any actual learning would never happen. Did you learn in your class that the New Testament was only put together hundreds of years AD by the fledgling Catholic Church which was solidifying their power against the various other equally legitimate sects and that they picked and chose what to include drawing from Gnostic scriptures written hundreds of years BC? Of course not.
That's why classes like that are worse than useless. Zealots will destroy any actual learning in them in the intrests of promoting their agenda.
So because a certain science is "accepted," you believe it must be true?
Absolutely not. Nor is it even possible to derive that from what he said. That would be an example of the inherent flaws in creationist thinking.
Is that not as much an act of faith as believing in creation?
Of course not.
The best theory that anybody has yet to come up with that fits the facts is evolution, hence what is taught is that this is the best theory that fits the facts. Huge difference, huh?
The fact is, neither evolution nor creationism, as an origin of modern species, can be proven.
But evolution could be disproven and creationism can't. That makes evolution science and creationism a religion.
And neither have any bearing on the teaching of pure science.
Given that evolution is a science, it clearly has a bearing on science.
So why should a public school waste time teaching either?
Well, you have certainly demonstrated quite convincingly that creationism has no place in a public school.
Tell someone 'Einstein was wrong' and you would probably get beaten badly even before you say a word about evidence.
Utter crap. That is the fundamental difference.
Come to me and say that, and I'll say, "Oh yeah? Prove it."
If you can, then great. If not, I'll point out where you made a mistake. If it's over my head (which it probably would be) I'll hold off on my judgement until the experts have weighed in. If you are correct, then your ideas will be vindicated eventually.
Scientists aren't the ones famous for burning people alive for disagreeing with their unprovable beliefs. Huge difference.
Religion is too inclusive a term to be so trivialized. Maybe the only religion you've ever encountered "rests on a premise of faith" but that is not a generalizable characteristic of religion.
Sure it is. That is what religion is. Name one religion that doesn't? Be sure to provide absolute 100% irrefutable proof for every single aspect of that belief.
If you can't, then you have failed to prove your point.
but faith is not, by definition, unprovable belief. Rather it is belief based on reasonably strong evidence of the reliability of what one is believing in, at least in a Christian understanding of what faith is.
That's a nice thought, but it just isn't true. See, you go from talking about how the bible's observations of human nature match up to reality, how *some* of the historical facts match up etc, which is fine as far as it goes. You proceed to ignore the things in the bible that don't match up, the things that are blatantly palgiarized from other older sources, and somehow, magically conclude that there is a god who is so loving that in order to convince himself not to torture us for acting in a manner consistent with the way he created us that he should torture and murder his own son?
If you don't see that there is a tremendous blind leap there, then you are beyond rationality.
Heck, most mythologies match the historical period in which they were relevant to a decent degree.
Are you saying that Zeus, Odin, and all the rest of the gods that have ever been written about are real as well?
If so, then fine. If not, then the only difference is that you have actively chosen to believe one over the other.
That is why it is an unprovable belief. There is no "evidence" whatsoever. Unless, that is, The Iliad is evidence of the existence of Zeus, Appolo, and the rest of the Greek Pantheon.
Thursday? You mean the Red Sox' Series win is just another implanted memory from before time?
Yeah, but the long years since their last victory was all a false memory as well, so the victory they really didn't have wasn't really that big a deal anyway.
Would you stand in the way of using Joseph Mengele's research if you knew it was the only way you'd stay alive?
Given that we have used Mengele's research to advance medical science (think artificial limbs among other things), I'm not sure what your point actually is or if you even have one.
As a libertarian, Bush really isn't my favorite - but I just can't see why so many people hate him that badly!
Lots of reasons.
First, he has repeatedly broken his oath of office. He swore to defend the constitution of the United States. He has repeatedly launched attacks on it. He has specifically come out in favor, for the first time in history, for an amendment to reduce rights and freedoms for a segment of the population based on how they were born. This is 100% anti-freedom. I despise anybody who seeks to limit freedoms based on their own ignorant hatreds. To do this in direct violation of his oath of office is, quite simply, treasonous.
One of his first acts when he came into office was to rape the freedom of information act. This act is absolutely essential to a free society as has been amply demonstrated by the multitude of brutal inhuman crimes committed by various government agencies. Democracy dies behind closed doors and Bush has slammed as many shut as he can. This was a naked act of aggression against a free society, against democracy, and against America.
He has done everything in his power to help America deteriorate into a fundamentalist theocracy. Just look at who he picked for Attorney General. Anybody with a scrap of sense and a basic knowledge of history knows that allowing religious zealots of any particular faith into positions of power is a recipe for disaster. Never in history has it worked out well. It has always degenerated into brutal repression and it always will. That's just the nature of the beast.
Now look at what his appointemnt of Ashcroft has done. To a zealot like Ashcroft, things like boobies, dirty words and the like are far far more important than terrorism. This is evidenced by the fact that terrorism was demoted below these as priorities for the justice department as soon as Ashcroft took the job.
Further, for whatever reason, Bush systematically dismantled the cross agency anti-terrorism task force Clinton set up in the wake of the Cole bombing. He went so far as to ban the leader of the task force from re entering Oman. Why? Who knows, but the close tiess between the Bush's and the terrorist funding Saudi regime sure looks suspicious.
As if that wasn't enough to completely despise the person, how about the biggie that is so delusionally swept under the rug by his supporters.
He lied about Iraq. He lied over and over again. He knew full well that they were lies that he was telling, because the CIA told him not to run with the information because it wasn't good.
Now, after the fact, he tries to revise history saying that we're there to bring freedom to the region. He also tries to change the question to whether or not it is a good thing that Saddam is gone. That is completely irrelevant to the issue. It is irrelevant to that question whether or not the world is a safer place.
The ends are completely irrelevant to that basic fact: Bush knowingly deceived the American people about Iraq's weapons programs. He knowingly deceived us about the threat posed to us by Iraq. He has cost the citizens of this country over 100 Billion dollars and 1000 lives based on something that he knew for a fact was a lie.
That alone is enough for anybody with any respect for themself or this country to despise Bush.
There are really only 2 types of people that I have seen who support Bush.
1. Republicans who are republican first and American second. Their loyalty is to their party rather than to their country. That is why they do not care about how badly our freedoms are being raped and how our government is betraying the people of this country.
2. Fundamentalist religious zealots. Bush supports their petty hatreds and ignorant prejudices. As long as he is in favor of keeping "them damn faggots" from being treated with the same basic human rights as everybody else, then they do not give a flying fuck what else he does. The truly sad thing is that these s
Well, the coastal cities of the US are where all the liberals live. So why should we care about what happens there at all? Sounds like a useful bit of "urban renewal" to me.
Of course, not coincidentaly, it's also where most of the money is made, most technology developed, and most progress occurs.
The downside would be that all of the welfare states would have to start paying their own way instead of having the evil liberals subsdize their power, phones, etc. etc.
And if you knew anything about Modern versions of Windows you'd know it IS multi user. Ever heard of terminal services? Funny cause we have 80 people using one windows machine via clients and they can't view each others files let alone change them.
And if you knew more about it, then you wolud know that it is sorely lacking as a multi user OS.
For example can those 80 people set up scheduled services that will run as them on a regular basis ala that cutting edge technology, cron?
No it can't.
It can only run a service as a user if that user is logged in at the console.
So it does have some multi user capabilities, but it isn't truly a multi user OS.
You mention God but do you realize that in the Christian bible it clearly states that homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God.
I know this well. Had you been paying attention, you would know this. You would also know that eating pork, and not supplying burnt offerngs unto the lord are exactly as bad. You never stated whether you have eaten bacon as I asked before. Do you regularly sacrifice animals and burn them for the glory of the lord? If you fail these tests you are equal to a homosexual in the eye of the lord.
Seriously, dude. If you are wacky enough to try and claim some literal truth in the shit you have to go all the way.
Having government take control of your meds is socialism. You can try and spin it any way you want, but it is what it is. Socialism.
Your entire point throughout this discussion has been that we need a Nanny State to make things right. I have consistently argued for personal responsibility and limiting government. Who's the socialist? By any rational standard, that would be you.
Where do morals come from if not from God?
Why do you need a daddy ready to spank your sorry ass when you are wrong?
You still haven't ansered my question. When does life begin?
And I still won't. Your question is irrelevant to the discussion. You want Big Brother government telling us what is right or wrong. I believe that my fellow citizens can make their choices for themselves. You are clearly an exception, but that is why I love the second amendment. Try bringng your sick, hate filled agenda into my house and you will learn why.
Slashdot Mirror
but they knew it was their duty to rid the world of a dangerous tyrant and an enemy that treacherously attacked Pearl Harbor. It was not the Republicans that were in power then. Now, when the hour has come to get rid of an enemy that treacherously attacked in NY and Washingto DC, many are balking at the cost.
Nobody is balking at the cost of doing this.
What every patriotic American (i.e. ones who actually do their duty to be informed citizens rather than subjects) balks at is the fact that we are involved in a war in a country that didn't have a damn thing to do with the attacks on us while Bush is using our fucking tax dollars to help fund commercials promoting the country that did actually attack us (Saudi Arabia).
It's really dishonest of you to try and compare the fiasco we are involved in to WW2.
A valid comparison would have been if Japan bombed us and then we invaded China.
Freedom has always been costly in terms of lives and money and it seems that the younger generation is less willing to pay the price.
The younger generation is no less willing to pay the price for freedom.
What they are less willing to do is to die to provide benefits to GE, Halliburton, Bechtel, and various other war mongering corporations while providing no benefit to themselves or their country.
They are not willing to die for the lie that the Iraq war is. We are there not to promote freedom or democracy or any of the other lies that only the most ignorant could possibly believe. Now it's clear that only an extremely ignorant person could believe that because it isn't even the reasons we were given.
So many people in this country are so cowardly and ignorant that they have completely blocked out the fact that the only reason the Iraq war had any support in the first place is that Bush flat out lied that they posed an immediate and immenent threat to the US. Now this has been proven to be a lie and it has been proven that Bush knew full well that it was a lie.
The only reasons that he currently has any support at all are that too many people have a greater loyalty to their party than to their country. I.E. they are so incredibly cowardly and lacking in integrity that they can not admit that they were wrong and do the honorable thing.
The only other major reason that Bush has any support is because of all the people in this country who think that they are Christian, but are too ignorant to even know what that word means. Anybody who thinks that Bush is a Christian is dumber than a bag of rocks.
What these people really want and Bush has given them is somebody to promote their petty ignorant hatreds and prejudices. He gives them somebody who tells trhem that it is good for them to impose their beliefs on others at the point of a gun regardless that that is directly contrary to what this country at one time stood for.
So it really isn't surprising that not many people want to go die to help tear down every good thing this country used to stand for.
The really sad thing is that these ignorant hate monhgering religious zealots are exactly what this country was founded to get away from.
They always talk about how America was founded by Christians who were trying to escape persecution, but they ignore the simple fact that makes the pseperation of church and state an absolute necessity for a free society to exist:
The Christians were the ones doing the oppression in the first place.
Now they are doing it here and now. It's sad that they are so ignorant and deluded that they fail to recognize that religious rule has never once in the history of the world led to anything good.
You say I am ridiculous for calling it hypocritical. ... To ignore a line of research because it does not fit the hypothesis you think is correct is hypocrisy.
You are saying that just because you believe that something is true that everybody in the world should treat that as if it were reasonable. You call everybody hypocritical because they don't.
I am now postulating that a green alligator with a foot fetish created all of the universe except for Jupiter which was created by me.
You are a hypocrite by your own definition if you do not put my "theory" on exactly the same level of credibility as your god.
That is exactly what you are saying and that is exactly what I am calling ridiculous.
Are you saying it is not ridiculous?
I am considered "stupid" because I don't believe all their theories. Theories are also just beliefs until they can be proven yet they treat them as if they should be blatantly obvious to any "smart" person and hence since you don't believe in them you are stupid.. dumb... ignorant...uniformed...etc.
Theories are not beliefs and they are never proven.
How can you expect anybody to take you seriously at all when you clearly don't even understand the basis of the subject you are tryingto jump in on?
There are facts. The world is here, we are on it, and a lot of other things are on it. This happened somehow.
All the evidence points to the world having been here a long time before people arrived and there were various other species which were here before us and are no longer here.
Now, that evolution happens is not disputed by one single sane individual in the world. How could it be?
Have you ever seen a dog? A Seedless watermelon? Anti-biotic resistant bacteria?
These are all absolute 100% positive proof that evolution does happen.
Now where the Theory of Evolution comes in is in trying to provide a reasonable explanation of how life developed from where it was long before people were on this rock and where it is now in a manner that is consistent with the facts.
That's it.
Nobody is trying to claim that it's finished. Nobody is trying to claim that it is some sort of absolute truth.
Now, since you know nothing about the actual theory, and you are making ridiculous claims about it which are 100% wrong, that is why people thinnk you sound stupid when you comment on it.
What you do not get is that it isn't a question of "belief". That is religion. Science is about coming up with ideas and then testing them.
Thank scientists for cars, electricity, modern agriculture, computers and pretty much everything else you see besides fields mountains etc.
What do you have that we can thank religion for?
How many years ago was it that physicists laughed at for asking if gravity operated faster than the speed of light. Now we know an answer because finally someone didn't just laugh... they made several expirements to test just that.
Which is, again, completely irrelevant to what you are talking about.
That is a valid scientific question which is testable and falsifiable.
The existence or non existence of your invisible magical friend is neither of these.
Regardless of which it is, it has no possible bearing on anything.
It provides no useful answers to anything.
Now were your god the type to actually step up and show himself then this would be different and would make the point moot.
Since your god has chosen to make himself completely useless, unapproachable, and undetectable, there is no difference whatsoever between him existing and him not existing.
Well until you die that is. And then he sends me to burn because he created me not to accept things just because 5000 years ago some desert nomads wrote up some myths because he, like, totally loves me infinitely.
Well sorry that I happen to be working from memory on research that I saw ignored over 10+ years ago. Doesn't i
There is no need for a specific prayer time in school. However, if a student needs a certain time to pray, they should be allowed that.
Are you saying that they are not allowed this?
I wasn't aware that anybody cared if some people wanted to pray wherever they want to. The only issue I was aware of was people trying to force prayer time on everybody.
I think you need to loosen your tinfoil hat. I am not a Catholic and do not follow their doctrine.
What tinfoil hat? The fact is that the new testament was put together by the catholic church to promote their own agenda using texts from hundreds of years before to hundreds of years after Jesus.
Were these facts, critical to an accurate understanding of that religion, taught in your class? Do you think they would be allowed to be taught anywhere in America?
I already agreed that learning about various religions is a good experience, my issue was whether an accurate picture would be painted.
My simple reply is only this... I do not call scientists "uniformed radicallists" or any other such term just because I don't believe all of their theories.
I'm not sure what your point is. I said nothing of the sort.
Dismissing me as someone with lesser intellect because I believe in God and ignoring the hints in other scientific research that maybe some parts of this "god" thing are correct is idiocy at best and damnable at worst.
Again, I did nothing of the sort. Your persecution complex is showing again.
I'm beginning to believe that you are actually crazy though since you seem incapable of understanding what other people are saying. Further you seem to feel that reality and the facts are working against you. I do feel bad for you.
You are the one accusing people of being hypocrites because they don't give any idea you put forward as equally valid as every other idea.
Further, there are no hints of any sort outside of the bible and the people who believe in it that any of the god stuff has any basis in reality whatsoever. How is your god any more likely than a purple unicorn?
Who made your god?
What actual useful knowledge is gained by postulating such a thing?
If you have a problem, take it up with your god. He is presumably capable of having provided some evidence for his existence rather than turning all of creation into an idiotic game of "whoever believes whatever a so-called holy person tells them without question even when it contradicts reality wins and everyone else burns".
The fact that you would consider a thing which would be so petty deserving of worship is extremely bizarre to those of us who don't.
If your god actually exists, I would consider him a childish, immature, little prankster regardless of whether he had the power to create the universe or not.
With his silly little games, he is worthy of nothing but contempt IMHO.
Everyone in the world seems to descend from a single male and female couple approximately 4500-5000 years ago.
You're showing your ignorance again.
You have no clue what the hell you are talking about nd you are just making yourself look like an idiot.
They didn't trace people back to a couple, they traced back a male line and a female line, but they didn't even live at the same time and one lived far longer ago than 5000 years.
So please don't act like you're quoting something when you are loosly referencing it and then making up lies about what it said.
Is your gos truly so pathetic that he needs you to stoop to such levels?
Atheism is equivalently irrational to theism.
I am so sick of hearing this completely ignorant and idiotic lie being spread by people who are so insecure in their faith that they need to try and drag everybody else down to their level.
A theism without belief in a god.
You were born an atheist, I was born an atheist and everybody else in the entire history of the world was born an atheist.
People who believe in a god made an active decision at some point in their life to blindly and without evidence of any sort whatsoever start believing in some god.
I have seen zero evidence for any all powerful being, and the Judeo Christian is in fact logically inconsistent. All knowing all powerful and good is a fallacy.
Further to accept that god, you have to take as gospel that he loves you, and wants you to believe in him but the only way to get on his good side is to believe blindly or he will torture you forever.
The very idea that a being who could create the universe is hung up on whether or not you will accept his existence without proof is patently ridiculous.
The idea that he made us the way we are and then said he'd fry us for eternity if we acted in accordance with that design but he's really loving so much so that in order to forgive us for acting the way he made us he would torture and murder his own son is so utterly ridiculous that were it not shoved down the throats of little children from birth, it would have died out a long time ago.
So believing insane, inconsistent things like that is a religion.
Looking at it rationally and deciding that it doesn't make sense is not in any way.
So please stop repeating those ridiculous lies.
the main point is that there is a HUGE amount that science doesn't know and to dismiss the fact that an omnipotent God could have created it just because they can make theories to say how it could have been done otherwise is hypocritical. To say you are searching for the truth and dismiss one avenue of research because you arn't comfortable with the possible existence of a "god" figure is stupid at best and damnable at worst.
The problem with this is that if people acted like this then no progress would ever be possible.
Here's how this works (or doesn't more to the point).
Well, here's a theory that fits all the evidence and if true would predict that such and such is true. What do you know, such and such is true etc.
Well. It could have been the Judeo Christian God doing it and hiding his existence just to fuck with us.
Hey, you're right... and it could have happenned because an invisible purple unicorn that enjoys probing its own butt with its horn made it so.
Hey, you're right...... and it could have been because the tooth fairy made it so.
And on and on and on forever.
And all of these competing theories are on exactly equal footing (except the first of course which actually provided new useful information). There is no rational reason whatsoever to choose one over the other.
So do you accept the unicorn and tooth fairy theories as every bit as good explanations as the god thing? If not, then you are by your own logic guilty of hypocrisy.
Religion is not an avenue of research. It is something that you have chosen to believe for whatever reasons you have, but none of those reasons are rational for if they were there would be one religion and no atheists.
Now, the fact that you are operating from the assumption that you know absolute truth even though there exists no possible way to justify your position over that of the tooth fairy puts you in a mind set where you are not capable of addressing the subject rationally.
That is why you keep repeating such ridiculous things like dismissing your beliefs is hypocritical.
If you dismiss anybody's beliefs, or even give them one less iota of credibility than your argument dictates that you are hypocritical.
It doesn't make sense, does it?
What is wrong with a few minutes to allow kids to pray or not to pray?
Because what happens in reality is that there are a few minutes to pray or see who the "evil heathen non-believers" are so that they can be singled out for later oppression. School is supposed to be for learning. Kids can pray on their own time if they want to (or more acurately because that is what their parents told them they're supposed to do with absofuckingly no actual facts presented just this is the truth believe it or burn.).
The only purpose in trying to shove prayer time into school is to try and force it into the faces of those who don't want it or to weed out those who don't conform to that particular system.
When I was in high school back in the late 1980's (I graduated in 1991), we had a history class that studied WORLD RELIGION. No one forced us to "worship" any God/god. We were just taught about various different religions, and IMO, it was an excellent class. If we are going to make a kids take a biology class, what is wrong with teaching a class on world religion (note: not any one specific religion)?
That is a completely differnt subject and one on which we agree.
There is nothing wrong with learning about the history of religion. The only problem is that any actual learning would never happen. Did you learn in your class that the New Testament was only put together hundreds of years AD by the fledgling Catholic Church which was solidifying their power against the various other equally legitimate sects and that they picked and chose what to include drawing from Gnostic scriptures written hundreds of years BC?
Of course not.
That's why classes like that are worse than useless. Zealots will destroy any actual learning in them in the intrests of promoting their agenda.
Oh, different cats with each other etc.
Sorry, I totally misread that as cats and horses crossing.
Long day.
So because a certain science is "accepted," you believe it must be true?
Absolutely not. Nor is it even possible to derive that from what he said. That would be an example of the inherent flaws in creationist thinking.
Is that not as much an act of faith as believing in creation?
Of course not.
The best theory that anybody has yet to come up with that fits the facts is evolution, hence what is taught is that this is the best theory that fits the facts. Huge difference, huh?
The fact is, neither evolution nor creationism, as an origin of modern species, can be proven.
But evolution could be disproven and creationism can't. That makes evolution science and creationism a religion.
And neither have any bearing on the teaching of pure science.
Given that evolution is a science, it clearly has a bearing on science.
So why should a public school waste time teaching either?
Well, you have certainly demonstrated quite convincingly that creationism has no place in a public school.
That sound was the OPs point flying right over your head.
Your sarcasm detector is broken.
Tell someone 'Einstein was wrong' and you would probably get beaten badly even before you say a word about evidence.
Utter crap.
That is the fundamental difference.
Come to me and say that, and I'll say, "Oh yeah? Prove it."
If you can, then great. If not, I'll point out where you made a mistake.
If it's over my head (which it probably would be) I'll hold off on my judgement until the experts have weighed in.
If you are correct, then your ideas will be vindicated eventually.
Scientists aren't the ones famous for burning people alive for disagreeing with their unprovable beliefs.
Huge difference.
Religion is too inclusive a term to be so trivialized. Maybe the only religion you've ever encountered "rests on a premise of faith" but that is not a generalizable characteristic of religion.
Sure it is. That is what religion is.
Name one religion that doesn't?
Be sure to provide absolute 100% irrefutable proof for every single aspect of that belief.
If you can't, then you have failed to prove your point.
but faith is not, by definition, unprovable belief. Rather it is belief based on reasonably strong evidence of the reliability of what one is believing in, at least in a Christian understanding of what faith is.
That's a nice thought, but it just isn't true.
See, you go from talking about how the bible's observations of human nature match up to reality, how *some* of the historical facts match up etc, which is fine as far as it goes. You proceed to ignore the things in the bible that don't match up, the things that are blatantly palgiarized from other older sources, and somehow, magically conclude that there is a god who is so loving that in order to convince himself not to torture us for acting in a manner consistent with the way he created us that he should torture and murder his own son?
If you don't see that there is a tremendous blind leap there, then you are beyond rationality.
Heck, most mythologies match the historical period in which they were relevant to a decent degree.
Are you saying that Zeus, Odin, and all the rest of the gods that have ever been written about are real as well?
If so, then fine.
If not, then the only difference is that you have actively chosen to believe one over the other.
That is why it is an unprovable belief.
There is no "evidence" whatsoever.
Unless, that is, The Iliad is evidence of the existence of Zeus, Appolo, and the rest of the Greek Pantheon.
have found that families such as feline and equine can in fact inter-breed.
What?!?
So when a horse fucks a cat, that's where hats come from?
Thursday? You mean the Red Sox' Series win is just another implanted memory from before time?
Yeah, but the long years since their last victory was all a false memory as well, so the victory they really didn't have wasn't really that big a deal anyway.
Of course, I have a place up there to get away from the I-know-better-than-you ignoramuses on the Left Coast...
Of course, California can pay its own way at least.
Maybe when Montana grows up and starts actually paying its own bills, then it would have earned a say in its own affairs.
As long as we're subsidizing your existence, deal with it. Or get off your ass and get your state off of welfare.
There's a reason most of the richest states are those liberal coastal states, and most of the red states are welfare states.
Would you stand in the way of using Joseph Mengele's research if you knew it was the only way you'd stay alive?
Given that we have used Mengele's research to advance medical science (think artificial limbs among other things), I'm not sure what your point actually is or if you even have one.
As a libertarian, Bush really isn't my favorite - but I just can't see why so many people hate him that badly!
Lots of reasons.
First, he has repeatedly broken his oath of office. He swore to defend the constitution of the United States. He has repeatedly launched attacks on it. He has specifically come out in favor, for the first time in history, for an amendment to reduce rights and freedoms for a segment of the population based on how they were born. This is 100% anti-freedom. I despise anybody who seeks to limit freedoms based on their own ignorant hatreds. To do this in direct violation of his oath of office is, quite simply, treasonous.
One of his first acts when he came into office was to rape the freedom of information act. This act is absolutely essential to a free society as has been amply demonstrated by the multitude of brutal inhuman crimes committed by various government agencies. Democracy dies behind closed doors and Bush has slammed as many shut as he can.
This was a naked act of aggression against a free society, against democracy, and against America.
He has done everything in his power to help America deteriorate into a fundamentalist theocracy. Just look at who he picked for Attorney General. Anybody with a scrap of sense and a basic knowledge of history knows that allowing religious zealots of any particular faith into positions of power is a recipe for disaster. Never in history has it worked out well. It has always degenerated into brutal repression and it always will. That's just the nature of the beast.
Now look at what his appointemnt of Ashcroft has done.
To a zealot like Ashcroft, things like boobies, dirty words and the like are far far more important than terrorism. This is evidenced by the fact that terrorism was demoted below these as priorities for the justice department as soon as Ashcroft took the job.
Further, for whatever reason, Bush systematically dismantled the cross agency anti-terrorism task force Clinton set up in the wake of the Cole bombing. He went so far as to ban the leader of the task force from re entering Oman. Why?
Who knows, but the close tiess between the Bush's and the terrorist funding Saudi regime sure looks suspicious.
As if that wasn't enough to completely despise the person, how about the biggie that is so delusionally swept under the rug by his supporters.
He lied about Iraq.
He lied over and over again.
He knew full well that they were lies that he was telling, because the CIA told him not to run with the information because it wasn't good.
Now, after the fact, he tries to revise history saying that we're there to bring freedom to the region.
He also tries to change the question to whether or not it is a good thing that Saddam is gone.
That is completely irrelevant to the issue.
It is irrelevant to that question whether or not the world is a safer place.
The ends are completely irrelevant to that basic fact:
Bush knowingly deceived the American people about Iraq's weapons programs. He knowingly deceived us about the threat posed to us by Iraq.
He has cost the citizens of this country over 100 Billion dollars and 1000 lives based on something that he knew for a fact was a lie.
That alone is enough for anybody with any respect for themself or this country to despise Bush.
There are really only 2 types of people that I have seen who support Bush.
1. Republicans who are republican first and American second. Their loyalty is to their party rather than to their country. That is why they do not care about how badly our freedoms are being raped and how our government is betraying the people of this country.
2. Fundamentalist religious zealots. Bush supports their petty hatreds and ignorant prejudices. As long as he is in favor of keeping "them damn faggots" from being treated with the same basic human rights as everybody else, then they do not give a flying fuck what else he does.
The truly sad thing is that these s
but I don't know of any that's named after the state it's based in.).
Well, the New England Patriots are named after an entire region rather than just a state.
Well, the coastal cities of the US are where all the liberals live. So why should we care about what happens there at all? Sounds like a useful bit of "urban renewal" to me.
Of course, not coincidentaly, it's also where most of the money is made, most technology developed, and most progress occurs.
The downside would be that all of the welfare states would have to start paying their own way instead of having the evil liberals subsdize their power, phones, etc. etc.
Oh funny I have no problem scheduling jobs on Windows...
Try it with a service as I specified.
It does not work.
Apparently certain bodily fluids that are commonly found on bed sheets will flouresce under ultraviolet light.
Blood? oh shit, gotta go.
And if you knew anything about Modern versions of Windows you'd know it IS multi user. Ever heard of terminal services? Funny cause we have 80 people using one windows machine via clients and they can't view each others files let alone change them.
And if you knew more about it, then you wolud know that it is sorely lacking as a multi user OS.
For example can those 80 people set up scheduled services that will run as them on a regular basis ala that cutting edge technology, cron?
No it can't.
It can only run a service as a user if that user is logged in at the console.
So it does have some multi user capabilities, but it isn't truly a multi user OS.
So can you give a reasonable laymans explanation of why it's even reasonable that the whole thing is true?
I mean, it seems like it's similar to normal friction.
Is this reasonable?
Does that indicate that the "fabric" of spacetime is more like a real fabric than you might otherwise think?
You mention God but do you realize that in the Christian bible it clearly states that homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God.
I know this well. Had you been paying attention, you would know this.
You would also know that eating pork, and not supplying burnt offerngs unto the lord are exactly as bad.
You never stated whether you have eaten bacon as I asked before. Do you regularly sacrifice animals and burn them for the glory of the lord?
If you fail these tests you are equal to a homosexual in the eye of the lord.
Seriously, dude. If you are wacky enough to try and claim some literal truth in the shit you have to go all the way.
Having government take control of your meds is socialism. You can try and spin it any way you want, but it is what it is. Socialism.
Your entire point throughout this discussion has been that we need a Nanny State to make things right. I have consistently argued for personal responsibility and limiting government.
Who's the socialist? By any rational standard, that would be you.
Where do morals come from if not from God?
Why do you need a daddy ready to spank your sorry ass when you are wrong?
You still haven't ansered my question.
When does life begin?
And I still won't. Your question is irrelevant to the discussion. You want Big Brother government telling us what is right or wrong. I believe that my fellow citizens can make their choices for themselves. You are clearly an exception, but that is why I love the second amendment.
Try bringng your sick, hate filled agenda into my house and you will learn why.