Shotgun

I don't really think of the Bible as being right or wrong; I just don't believe that it is the teachings of God, since I don't believe in God. I think of it as a book that men wrote, perhaps believing that they were writing down the teachings of God, or perhaps with some other motive. It's an interesting book, but I find little use for it myself (other than curiosity, since it does seem to have such a strong influence on many people).

Well, at least he has a job, and it's probably better than having to sell his own organs in order to feed his children.

I've been looking for a new car, so we've been looking at a lot of crash ratings... And it seems that (in general) the bigger vehicle you're in, the less likely you are to get seriously injured or killed in a crash. But I'll probably get a Honda Civic, since it had the best ratings for what is practical and affordable for me. Edit: Oh, and I don't think that the government should ban SUV's, but I didn't vote since that wasn't one of the options.

If arrests began to rise during prohibition, it could have been because police were less tolerant of public drunkenness (since alcohol was illegal), rather than more public drunkenness actually occurring. How would we know what the total consumption was (of any type of alcohol) during that time? And anyhow, there are just as many alcoholics who use beer or wine as their drug of choice as there are who use liquor. They just consume more to get the same effect. And again, how would we know this? Though it could be a logical assumption, given that more alcohol was being produced and consumed at home, and therefore more available to young people. But then a lot of today's alcoholics began drinking at a very early age, so I don't know what the explanation would be for that. Perhaps. Though it is interesting that legal drugs (alcohol and tobacco) are a much bigger problem in our country than any of the illegal drugs. But that could be because they've been around longer and are more ingrained in our culture. Hmm, hard to say . . .

What I meant is... Do you actually check that what Snopes says is true, or do you just take their word for it?

Do any of you ever check the references for articles on Snopes.com, or do you just assume that the articles are true (and therefore the final word on whether a story/urban legend is true or false)? Just curious . . .

I'm starting to think that you have a crush on Michael Vick.

I agree that making vices illegal won't do much to improve people's lives, but as for prohibition increasing alcohol abuse, I sort of doubt that. I'm sure that there are some sources which will say that, as there are other sources that will say it reduced alcohol abuse. But the fact is that alcoholism (or any other addiction) is often a private thing, and most statistics are based on rates of alcohol-related arrests, treatments, deaths, etc., which really doesn't tell us much about those who drink in private (which goes on with or without prohibition), who never enter the legal or medical systems for their alcoholism. And even those who do enter the system are rarely followed up on (except in severe cases), so actual rates of abuse are pretty hard to quantify. And as far as alcohol-related deaths, from what I have read the rate went down during prohibition. But this could have been because physicians were less likely to list alcohol as the cause of death during that time (because of the social implications for the family). Again, most of these statistics are unreliable. Anyhow, one thing that prohibition did likely do was to reduce the quality of the alcohol that was available, making it more dangerous. And that would be similar to the current situation with meth and other street drugs - the illegal status means that you're less likely to know exactly what you're buying and putting into your body. (And I suppose that prostitution is comparable; legal prostitution would probably be safer than illegal prostitution in many ways.) But would making meth legal reduce the amount of abuse? I tend to doubt it. Though having it illegal certainly isn't fixing the problem, and yeah it seems to be creating other problems beyond drug abuse.

Yes, but who is more capable of providing a "good home" does not necessarily mean the person who makes the most money. I didn't mean to suggest that the mother should automatically get custody, but it sounded as if the choice was either her having custody or them splitting it 50/50, in which case the former sounds like a better choice. One thing I would personally consider is that I would want my child to be breastfed (for the health benefits), and the father is not capable of providing that on his own. So that is one good reason for the mother to have custody at least in the beginning. And again, that is assuming that she can provide a good home in other ways, even if that requires having financial assistance from him. But I really think that counseling would be a good idea in this situation. I would find it hard enough to give good advice to a close friend in this situation, let alone someone I know nothing about.

It's no longer about what is fair to you or her; it's about what is best for the child. But I'm guessing that none of us on here know you or the situation well enough to be giving you much advice. Perhaps this would be a good time for the two of you to seek advice from a family counselor? Sounds like a difficult situation. Good luck to you.

Semantics. I understand what you're saying, though I still disagree about the use of the word "evidence." But that's one of the limitations of language and communication; everything is open to interpretation.

Hmm... Well, at least now we have evidence of the Antichrist.

Another definition of "evidence" from American Heritage: "A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment." From that definition, I think that if people say they have personal evidence of god, then they probably do. It's not scientific evidence that is going to prove anything to the rest of the world, but that is not what most people are claiming.

It sounds like that is what you should do, if money is a major issue for her but not for you, and if you do not want to get married. This sounds like the best way to take care of the child, considering the situation that you are in (and assuming that she is capable of taking care of the child aside from the money issue).

Some people have personal evidence that god exists (or perhaps other supernatural things, such as the bogeyman). Even though this may not be enough proof to make others believe, it may be enough proof for the person who experiences it.

I don't see this as directly comparable. The issue you describe is one of placing a higher value on one animals life than another. The issue here is one of needless animal cruelty purely for entertainment purposes which cannot be compared to the neccessary slaughter (presumaby as humane as possible) of animals for consumption or products. Duckwater was talking about dogfighting being acceptable in some cultures but not in others, and how animals are looked at differently in different cultures. That's what I was comparing it to - some cultures see horses as food, but in the US we typically see them as better than that. But I agree that the entertainment vs. food factor makes the comparison a bit off.

you know you can simply remove the name from the subject field??? ala this post? yes it still threads to you, but do people actually read in threaded anymore? that is so 80s.. Or... If you're at the last post, then it only takes one click to get back to the first post... And it's pretty obvious that everyone who posts on here has time for that one extra click. And to get back on subject... I don't know much about the Vick case, but this thread reminds me of a news article I recently read about people trying to get a horse slaughterhouse shut down. I didn't get the impression that any of these people were concerned about other slaughterhouses (cows, chickens, pigs, etc.), so I thought it was interesting how we can be so appalled at the killing of one kind of animal while the killing of other kinds of animals is just an everyday thing that we pay little attention to. (Not judging anyone; I'm guilty of the same thing.)

Until I can explain how and when all matter and energy began, I'll let others hold their own beliefs about that without telling them that they are wrong. I may disagree with them, but it is silly to insist that I am right when I offer no explanation to contradict their beliefs. I can claim that matter and energy have simply always existed in one form or another (which is what I tend to believe), but for now that requires as much faith as believing that some sort of supernatural god/creator has always existed.

I knew I shouldn't have opened this thread. Now I'm craving Krispy Kremes.

Just an armchair philosopher. But you see my point, right? I understand the point about different paths, but I don't think that Muslims believe that they are two separate entities.

Well it goes something like this. Theory predicts that X should happen under Y and Z circumstances. Engineer Y and Z circumstances and see if X happens. If it doesn't, hey presto, evidence that theory is wrong. Alternatively you could have a god with property X and property Y where X and Y are mutually exclusive. Like a square circle. Also evidence that your god theory is wrong. Of course if you haven't got a theory to test, you're stuffed but equally you have nothing to believe either. So you have no beliefs regarding how or when the universe (all matter and energy) began? Before the big bang, or anything else that we have theories for? I don't believe in god either, but I don't claim that my belief is based on evidence, because there isn't any. And my logic leads me to believe that there is no god, but I can see how others' logic leads them to believe that there is one. It would be rather arrogant of me to claim that my logic is better, when there is no evidence to prove either side.

Are you a Muslim?

That would convince you that there isn't a god? Or just that you had the wrong idea about it? My understanding is that to Muslims, Allah is the same god that the Christians worship, so I'm not sure why people often refer to them as if they are two different gods. (Perhaps to Christians they are?) But then I'm not a Muslim, so maybe a Muslim could correct me if I am wrong...

Good question. Many things may change my perception of God, but I think it would be very hard for me to believe there isn't one (of some sort) ... back to that core belief thing. So logic and evidence won't cut it then? . . . What evidence is there that proves that god does not exist? (Not evidence disproving the bible, but evidence disproving the existence of any sort of god.)

By "religion," I assume you mean the belief in a supernatural power/creator, and I sort of doubt that the world will ever be without that. Progress in science may prove a lot of things, even discredit the bible (etc.) until no one believes in that anymore, but I don't think it's possible for science to prove that a creator simply does not exist. So I think that at least some people will continue to believe in a god/creator even if all of today's major religions fade away. (Not a creator in the biblical sense, but one that perhaps created our world to evolve as it does.)