And another you lack is the ability to think clearly.
Why do you assume I am insulted? I'm not. I've been exposed to religious stupidities for sixty years. Of course no offence was meant. Bigots seldom realise that they are either stupid or insulting.
Because I point it out does not mean I am offended. I expect no better from the religious mind set. You have to realise that religious people have chosen to believe. It isn't based on intelligence or reason. They have chosen to be stupid, to have 'faith'. I choose otherwise. I don't bow down to darkness, I seek to illuminate it. If truth offends it is not my problem.
Oh, and from the reactions of the god bothers in this thread, it certainly is not me who is insecure.
Thank you for supporting my case. There is a distinction made between prayer and giving thanks which I am sure you well know. Giving thanks is always appropriate. Prayer is not.
I have no problem with people exercising their own religion - on their own. They don't have a right to inflict their rituals on me (unless it is their own home and I am free to leave).
If say, my religion demands silence before god (rather than wearing a hat or not wearing a hat) then what they say and do affects my religion. If you are going to respect religions you cannot ask people to listen to apostasy can you?
I am not talking about hypocrisy in the churches I am talking about hypocrisy of the churches. If you think that public prayer is appropriate then you disagree with what christ taught. To me, it is then hypocritical (or heresy if you like) to call oneself christian. You are not a christian if you disagree with what he taught.
Wrong. You are not considering the plethora of religions. I live in a multicultural society. Listening to all the objections would take up more time than a prayer. Oh, and whose prayer goes ahead? Which one?
Anyone who wants to pray can pray before they get there. Then they can pray as atheist, jew or jain. In actuality the teachings (not the practice) of all major religion in the USA discourage public prayer.
I guess the only problem with public prayer is that it is against Jewish, Christian and Muslim teachings. You give yourself away when you say "allowed" not to - as if you were granting a right.
Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion. Majority rules is not good enough in this case. If anyone objects then it does not happen or happens elsewhere.
You don't even get into the possible conflicts, muslim prayer, christian, hindu... Which one or each one by one?
I do not have any 'lack' of religion. What I 'lack' is the stupidity of having a religion. Do you normally go around telling people they are lacking something?
Do you even realise that you made a bigoted statement? When you accuse me of a 'lack' because I do not share your beliefs you get damn close to the very definition of bigotry. I'll bet you don't even see the need to apologise to an entire class of people whom you called deficient.
No, and nor does anyone else have a warhead that could be detonated at that depth and pressure. Assuming that that weapon currently in stock would be crushed we would have to design a special nuke for it. Probably take more than 90 days.
I really don't understand what you are attempting here. Is it some sort of argument? It certainly isn't a discussion a consideration of issues. Where did I suggest somebody hypnotised her. Where did I say that the power of the thing burnt her?
She may have been in a hypnotic or semi hypnotic state due to a petite mal sizeure cause by the shining of a bright (and moving!) in her eyes, which resulted in her believing she was burned and causing blistering. Discuss the likelihood by al means but not the possibility. More particularly, please do not introduce straw-men and please do not take the piss. Have a little intellectual honesty.
All I have maintained is that there maybe something to her story and there are issues that might need looking at. What I get back is the same attitude as "heavier than air craft cannot fly", "man can't travel at more than 70 mph".
I'll concede to the fact that I should have used 'blister' not burn. But would you expect her to know the difference?
How is she supposed to know until it happens. I knew an athlete once who died very rapidly from an aneurism. A little simple surgery would have prevented it. But she didn't know she had the weakness. Have you has yourself checked for all such possible conditions? Has anyone?
Plus, you cannot hold a 12 year old responsible for all that much.
Try an experiment. Thrust a red light in the face of a number of strangers a foot or more shorter than you. See how many flinch.
Repeat experiment with people larger than you. See how many flinch and how many lash out.
Not sure how much of a case you have with that argument
Are you sure about the second sentence? I am led to believe otherwise. You might also want to look at the warning on the new 3d TV's. Seems to common to be described as a disorder.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do you assume I am insulted? I'm not. I've been exposed to religious stupidities for sixty years. Of course no offence was meant. Bigots seldom realise that they are either stupid or insulting.
Because I point it out does not mean I am offended. I expect no better from the religious mind set. You have to realise that religious people have chosen to believe. It isn't based on intelligence or reason. They have chosen to be stupid, to have 'faith'. I choose otherwise. I don't bow down to darkness, I seek to illuminate it. If truth offends it is not my problem.
Oh, and from the reactions of the god bothers in this thread, it certainly is not me who is insecure.
You are being disingenuous. You are pretending that the word 'lack' means something other than what it does mean.
In most countries you do have some freedom from speech. Slander laws etc.
And, no, you cannot impose your unilateral rules on me. You are actually supporting my point.
Religion is divisive and in conflict with itself. Better off getting rid of it.
You just demonstrated your argument is fvvked. You are arguing for the tyranny of the majority. You are a dangerous person if listened to.
Thank you for supporting my case. There is a distinction made between prayer and giving thanks which I am sure you well know. Giving thanks is always appropriate. Prayer is not.
That belief acceptable?
Diverting my purpose, wasting my time, that is imposing your religion on me.
If say, my religion demands silence before god (rather than wearing a hat or not wearing a hat) then what they say and do affects my religion. If you are going to respect religions you cannot ask people to listen to apostasy can you?
If the largest group is two out of thirty? No, simpler to dispense with it or do it elsewhere.
I am not talking about hypocrisy in the churches I am talking about hypocrisy of the churches. If you think that public prayer is appropriate then you disagree with what christ taught. To me, it is then hypocritical (or heresy if you like) to call oneself christian. You are not a christian if you disagree with what he taught.
Wrong. You are not considering the plethora of religions. I live in a multicultural society. Listening to all the objections would take up more time than a prayer. Oh, and whose prayer goes ahead? Which one?
Anyone who wants to pray can pray before they get there. Then they can pray as atheist, jew or jain. In actuality the teachings (not the practice) of all major religion in the USA discourage public prayer.
I guess the only problem with public prayer is that it is against Jewish, Christian and Muslim teachings. You give yourself away when you say "allowed" not to - as if you were granting a right.
You don't even get into the possible conflicts, muslim prayer, christian, hindu... Which one or each one by one?
I do not have any 'lack' of religion. What I 'lack' is the stupidity of having a religion. Do you normally go around telling people they are lacking something?
Do you even realise that you made a bigoted statement? When you accuse me of a 'lack' because I do not share your beliefs you get damn close to the very definition of bigotry. I'll bet you don't even see the need to apologise to an entire class of people whom you called deficient.
Well, he might turn out to be made of oil if the fracture that dome.
No, and nor does anyone else have a warhead that could be detonated at that depth and pressure. Assuming that that weapon currently in stock would be crushed we would have to design a special nuke for it. Probably take more than 90 days.
She may have been in a hypnotic or semi hypnotic state due to a petite mal sizeure cause by the shining of a bright (and moving!) in her eyes, which resulted in her believing she was burned and causing blistering. Discuss the likelihood by al means but not the possibility. More particularly, please do not introduce straw-men and please do not take the piss. Have a little intellectual honesty.
All I have maintained is that there maybe something to her story and there are issues that might need looking at. What I get back is the same attitude as "heavier than air craft cannot fly", "man can't travel at more than 70 mph".
I'll concede to the fact that I should have used 'blister' not burn. But would you expect her to know the difference?
As for LEDs being harmless just learn. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosensitive_epilepsy
You demonstrate your ignorance.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-petite-mal.htm
Note particularly "such as a light being flashed in the eyes".
I wont bother to wait for your apology.
I'm saying that maybe power had nothing to do with it. That is all.
No? Then how are you typing? How do you stand up? I'm not suggesting anything more than that.
Plus, you cannot hold a 12 year old responsible for all that much.
Try an experiment. Thrust a red light in the face of a number of strangers a foot or more shorter than you. See how many flinch. Repeat experiment with people larger than you. See how many flinch and how many lash out.
Not sure how much of a case you have with that argument
Are you sure about the second sentence? I am led to believe otherwise. You might also want to look at the warning on the new 3d TV's. Seems to common to be described as a disorder.
I don't think this applies. The arm was jerked away.
I think Randi is anti unreason not anti science.
Salt? I saw no salt, just ice cube (from my coke damnit - I had to toss it) and a finger.
Yes, a physical change of state. Is this now regarded as a chemical change rather than a physical one? No arguing, just asking.