redlegphi

It seems to me that if a person is gay and they take on the persona of a homophobe in order to get elected by a bunch of rabid homophobes instead of trying to persuade them that homosexuality is perfectly normal and natural, that person lacks any concept of what true leadership or morals are. But perhaps my education is failing me again.

Until death is immenent, at which point you will start to hedge your bets. I recently read a book about religion (or the lack thereof) in Denmark and Sweden. One of the interesting points that was brought up was how people deal with death. Atheists/Agnostics actually tended to deal the best with death, since they had long ago come to grips with the fact that they were going to die and had no idea what was going to happen afterwards. On the other hand, the Christians were generally the ones who were freaking out, worrying if they had really led good lives and concerned that they might go to hell if they hadn't. Granted, this was mostly based on anecdotal "evidence", but I found it interesting nonetheless.

Why would his anti-gay votes matter if, as you say, he is voting the interests of his constituency, as a REPRESENTATIVE is supposed to do? I thought they were supposed to vote according to what they thought was best for the country (or state or whatever, depending on which legislature they're in). Because we're doing the whole democratic republic thing instead of the pure democracy thing. Which is probably a good thing since 1) Most people don't have the time or resources to stay informed on all of the topics that are addressed in Congress and 2) Large masses of people can be persuaded to support extremely immoral things

I could say that National Geographic is biased just the same; that gets us no where. There is no such thing as unbiased, in that the label of biased is always put on the opposing side no matter what. Read my original post; I gave unbiased evidence for what I believe (the article in the beginning from Yahoo news. Furthermore, the author of the article holds a PhD - how is that an insult to your intelligence?... The fact that John D. Morris has absolutely nothing to do with the accuracy of his article. His PhD is in Geological Engineering, while the article appears to be some kind of half-assed sociological presentation of "data" that he's collected over the years about flood stories from around the world. Apparently he finds it shocking that a lot of primitive cultures experienced a flood that they believed to be global. Since I think it's a safe assumption that none of those cultures had any grasp of how large the globe actually was, I'm pretty sure we can assume that none of them knew how global the flood was. If you haven't gone more than one village away from your own for your entire life, a local flood could sure seem global. If you'd like to learn more about why Morris's arguments don't really support what you're saying, here is a great place to start. As to the Yahoo article, you appear to be arguing that because archeology has found something that supports a portion of the biblical story, then the entire biblical story must be true. That's a huge leap to make. It'd be like if I argued that because they found the ruins of the city of Troy, the Iliad must be true and therefore my faith in the gods of Olympus is strengthened.

And for those scientific types, out there, it's been freezing, in North Florida, for the last 3 1/2 months, so it must be global warming. Weather and climate. There's a reason there's a seperate word for each.

I don't believe they were direct quotes, but rather summaries of how Canuck was interpreting what was being said, skewed slightly for humo(u)rous effect.

But what about the one true god? Clapton?

Based on what I just read on cnn.com, I'd vote "Nutter with a gun", most likely with severe psychological issues, but I'm gonna wait for more facts to come out before I make my final judgement.

They speak with forked tongues. Behind closed doors they probably asked Bunting to fall on his sword over this. He's expendable. Can't say whom I agree with right now. There's good points on both sides. I would imagine one way to get the unemployment numbers down would to be to quit extending the benefit. Yes, because there are just so many jobs to be had out there right now. Does it really make sense to you that people aren't trying that hard to find jobs because their lives are so comfortable living off of unemployment? Poverty isn't comfortable. Life isn't exactly pleasant when you're left wondering every month if you'll have enough money to pay the rent and all the bills or if you'll have to start making decisions on what to forego. Doesn't that really sound like an ideal lifestyle. I'm fairly certain the vast majority of people would much prefer the emotional/mental stability that comes with the financial security of a regular, decently paying job.

I think the chances are pretty high. There are probably a lot of variables, like how old she was when she left, how many memories she has of home, how often she talks to her family. How old was she when she came to the U.S? Religion is not just religion, it's a memory, a part of an identity that's hard to let go, even on a subconscious level. It's probably a part of her even if she says it's not.I personally left my country and my religion years ago. Even now, I don't believe it, but it's still a powerful influence on me. Yes, though there's a difference between cultural religion and no shit believing in a deity. There are plenty of atheists and agnostics who get their children baptized and get married in churches. That's not because they're regressing to religion, it's just because aspects of religion have become part of our cultures.

Science isn't about what's provable, it's about what's testable. The cornerstone of science isn't the theory, it's the experiment. And experiments have to be able to show the opposite of what your thesis is trying to claim. So, for example, for an experiment about the existence of a deity to be valid, it'd have to be possible for the experiment to also show that no deity exists. Given the nature of "God", there's no way you could design such an experiment. Therefore, everything related to deities belongs someplace other than a science classroom. The science of evolution, on the other hand, is entirely testable. We can construct experiments and make predictions to test how we believe evolution works. In fact, biologists do so all the time, which is why our understanding of how evolution works has evolved since Darwin first wrote his books. Religion relies on dogma to sustain faith. The strength of science is that it is so anti-dogmatic, leading to constant questioning and constant improvement of our understanding of our universe.

Pretty much anything's possible I suppose. If she was to go back to her religious roots, I'd wager that it'd be because of some tragedy (death of a family member or some such thing) or an enduring hardship (living in poverty, medical issues, etc.). Most people I've met who become atheist do so based on a logical thought. It takes a pretty significant emotional event to overrule logic, though it can happen. So, as the person who probably knows her best, how does she tend to react to hardship? That'll probably give you the best insight into answering your question.

23%

The IOC need to get over themselves. First they kick that one kid out because he took a picture with some girl kissing his medal at crotch level (and threatened to fine him I think? how much are they paying Olympians these days?) and now this. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the Stanley Cup winners routinely get drunk drinking from the Stanley Cup? I don't see how this is worse than that and I kinda think some of the reaction is probably sexist reaction to seeing girls act improperly (aka, acting like the boys do).

You may want to double check that. http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/12/25/iraq.us.soldiers.pregnant/index.html I'm pretty sure GEN O killed that order shortly after it was issued.

Anything that makes a person believe in invisible omnipotent omniscient omnipresent beings for which there is no evidence of existence should be considered a defect, IMHO. Only if that belief doesn't benefit them. Given that their are definite, material benefits to be had (especially in American society) if you express your belief in one of those invisible sky fairy thingies, it's not really a defect. Now if you'd like to argue that this demonstrates a defect in our society, you'll get no argument from me.

You already have a choice. Feel free to send your children to a private school or take them to Ken Ham's Creation Museum any time you feel like. Science class is for teaching science, not ridiculous religious dogma pretending to be science.

Yes, that is an example. .. and this is a good way to knowledge how? I said it was an example. I didn't say I thought it was a good example. The manner in which I use the term revelation knowledge is what we in the counseling business call an "ah hah" experience. It is profound and it is personal. It is what it is and does not require proof for someone else. I believe in the english language we would refer to that as an epiphany. Much easier to say and understand than "revelation knowledge", a term which I hadn't heard until this thread. Why make up completely new terms when there are perfectly good old words floating around that mean the exact same thing?

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Actually, the facts are voluminous. I was simply employing brevity. The matter has been studied to death, and some of these facts have been expressed here in past conversations. One must expose oneself to news sources which actually report this stuff in order to be informed. Operations like CNN give low priority to such stories. Meanwhile, I spent years listening to, and working at, a radio station which carried programs in which these things were discussed and facts & details were provided. Here's one example: The origin-of-life discussion. If the goal is education, then students would be exposed to both sides of the debate. However, based on previous conversations I know that you oppose this. As a secular humanist/atheist, you think the schools should support your religious viewpoint at the expense of any other. You guys love to throw around the word "science" to justify your bigotry, as in "Teach one side in science class, but teach the other side in a religion class." Two problems with this: If there really WAS a "religion" class you'd complain bitterly about it, especially if attendance was mandatory. Secondly, if there were such a class it would be the perfect place to teach evolution because it is, after all, nothing more than an unproven, unproveable secular humanist religious belief. However, you (and the Democrats) get what you want. By exposing students to a one-sided discussion of the topic, and by dragging it out for weeks at a time, you get them to conclude that there is no serious alternative view. They graduate and are cut loose into the world with this belief lodged in the back of their minds. Never mind that you can't explain how life began. The point is that people who believe there is no God are far more likely to fall for hysterical ideas & claims (such as the belief that humans can actually change the climate by driving certain cars, using certain light bulbs, etc.) These are people who are more likely to vote for the very Democrats who push this nonsense. Ever wonder why one of the biggest political action groups participating in Democrat politics are teacher's unions? Ever think about why Democrats were the driving force behind the creation of the federal Department of Education under J. Carter? Do you actually believe it had nothing to do with placing our kids' education under the control of the left for the purpose of securing a voter base made up of people who have never been taught critical thinking skills and who have been brainwashed into believing that there is no God and that people who think there is are not quite as "intelligent" as everyone else? Just one example. Cheers, Jon Since you appear to be a good, God-fearing Christian man, I'll go out on a limb here and assume that you go to church every Sunday. I'll also assume that, during that service, for however long it lasts, nobody gets up on the alter and teaches the theories of evolution, relativity, or how basic chemistry works. Why? Because church is where religious instruction happens. Similarly, science class is where science instruction happens. If you would like to continue to teach your children that the Flintstones was a documentary film, please feel free to do so on your own time or in church. Science class is for people who actually want to improve their knowledge of the world. Also, this has absolutely nothing to do with a school distrcit abusing their powers to spy on children and their families.

I think somebody doesn't know enough about the Chronicles of Narnia. The Evangelicals use it as a parallel to Christianity. It's THE reason the movie got made. I'm well aware of this. I read all 7 books as a kid, because I was raised to be a good Catholic boy.

Now there's a plan I like. You do realize that if they're really teaching and not preaching the Bible, then it's being treated as a work of fiction that can be taken no more seriously than the Chronic(WHAT?)cles of Narnia, right? And that all the lil Christian children will be exposed to the questioning thoughts of the non-Christian children?

I'm kinda curious if they bothered to ask legal counsel for an opinion on this before they decided to just go turn the cameras on.

I'm actually having a very similar situation right now with a Soldier we left back on Rear Det. In case you're curious, the way we're handling it (and the "correct" solution) was to tell him he had 30 days to come up with a new Family Care Plan. When that 30 days runs out, he'll be Chaptered out (he has already stated that he won't be able to come up with a new plan to care for his children). Problem solved without any involvement from the media. Personally, I have no issue with single parents (or dual military parents) in the Army, so long as they take their committment seriously and fulfill their duties to their fellow servicemembers. There are thousands such Soldiers who make positive contributions to our armed services every day, and I salute their sacrifice.

Now they're gonna ban swooping for sure!

It's been a while since high school, but I seem to remember being taught that inflation in Germany between the world wars was so bad that people had to use wheelbarrows full of deutschmarks to pay for a wheel of cheese. To imply that our current economic problems approach anywhere near that level is ridiculous.