winsor

The silliness of an argument hasn't stopped anyone. Indeed, it would seem that the sillier it is, the more attractive it appears to many. Reading various "Holy Books" (The Book of Mormon, Dianetics, The Koran) one is struck by a level of nonsense that would embarrass most self-respecting comic book authors. I again assert that our only inexhaustible natural resource is, in fact, stupidity, and religion thus taps into a bottomless wellspring of inanity. BSBD, Winsor

On the down side, the dollar is fated to revert to its inherent value (zero) in the forseeable future, at which point the US will be on a "pay as you go" basis. The good news is that our accumulated national debt will not allow foreign entities to purchsase an American hot-dog stand. The bad news is no more oil. If we wish to pay for imports with, say, agricultural exports, I would love to see how the harvest goes if there is no fuel for the tractors and combines. The best analogy that comes to mind for the rest of the world refusing to accept the Green Stamps we print (or electronically generate) with such wild abandon is flaming out something like an F-4 Phantom II or F-104 Starfighter. I have heard rumors that an F-4 has been successfully landed dead-stick exactly once, the F-104 never. We are on vapors, and our economy has not received the attention of the Martin-Baker people. The best we could hope is to be the economic equivalent of aircraft left in Vietnam after we achieved Peace with Honor (tm) - they were all over the country as lawn ornaments. However, considering the stick skills of those in charge, one can only find consolation in the fact that, when out of fuel, you crash but don't burn. Any way you cut it, the outcome is inevitable and it will not be pretty. It was fun while it lasted. BSBD, Winsor

Perjury is perjury. If the money was in the care of a third party, with no way it could be spent on anything but attorney's fees and so forth, accounting for everything else is okay. If the Zs had control over the funds, she committed perjury. That was an IQ test, and she flunked. I found the whole deal with Paula Jones to be farcical. Did he try to play 'hide the salami' with her? Bank on it. Did he pay much attention to her when she turned him down? Not a chance; he was focused on the others in line who were more than happy to go along with his game plan. If his answer under oath was to the effect that she proved her claim to be able to suck the chrome off a trailer hitch, they would have no basis for impeachment. Oddly enough, one of his dodges was to claim immunity by being subject to the UCMJ as Commander in Chief. As a civilian, he can legally make niknik with pretty much anyone he wants. In the military, however, the severity of sanctions against adultery goes up with rank - where a Private will get an Article 15, a General will get cashiered. Anyhow, I am not any more in favor of reprehensible actions by people I like than by those I do not. I prefer to avoid contact with liars of any stripe, if possible. BSBD, Winsor

well, if the earth is only 6000 years old... According to my calendar, it's 5772.

So, the data is cooked? Kind of like Obama's Dept of Labor and the un-employment info? More like Bush's WMD evidence Look, Saddam Hussein had WMDs and we have the receipts to prove it.

I believe that and I totally accept it as the truth. Ah, that is science, right? Not hardly. Science has precisely nothing to do with belief. Any of the processes described by bvn are well documented, and their results routinely reproducible. Whether or not they are economically viable is another question altogether. We have a problem here, in which our way of life is dependent upon consumption of oil - or approved equivalent (see above) - to the tune of tens of millions of barrels a day. If you do the arithmetic, that's one hell of a lot of oil. 200 years worth, at our current rate of consumption, is some 14 trillion barrels, and there is precisely no way there are those kind of reserves just lying around just waiting to be found. We are going to change our ways in the forseeable future, either willingly or by default. If we started yesterday to undergo a complete paradigm change regarding our use of energy, at the fastest rate possible, the effects would still be dreadful, and it is too little too late anyway. Since we are still muddling around trying to maintain the status quo that we could not afford 35 years ago, all the while getting the petroleum on which we rely on seemingly endless credit, the question is simply when it will all go to hell. Every time an economic system has wound up this far behind the power curve, it has imploded. At some point, the dollar is fated to revert to its inherent value, which is, in fact, zero. If the US of A was self-sufficient, the results of such a default would be catastrophic. This, however, is overly optimistic, since we are anything but self-sufficient. Despite the extent to which we are impressed with ourselves, cutting off imports of petroleum (as well as everything else) we cannot afford will result in complete shutdown of major portions of the US economy. There are going to be a lot of very hungry people. At any rate, if we chose to develop the capacity to use sunlight to generate a million barrels a day of 100 octane gasoline, it would not be enough to affect the overall equation. If we focus on changing our way of life so we do not need all the petroleum or petroleum substute, it might make things a little better when the spigot is turned off, but the likelihood of that is effectively zero. Enjoy yourself - it's later than you think. BSBD, Winsor

In other words, you don't have a problem with thieves as governors, and willingly support one. This from a supposedly moral and righteous christian. Keep up with the false christian bullshit. I am sure God has a special place in hell for you and your kind. Argumentum ad Hominem (Circumstantial) + PA. "No case - abuse the Plaintiff."

I've heard agnositcs and atheists say, "Oh my God!" I've heard virgins say "oh fuck!"

This had me laughing so hard I could not breathe. I am not sure how to categorize it, but it is definitely warped.

You keep making fun of the Tooth Fairy. Just because I only got dimes does not warrant your disrespect. At least that is a bit of mythology that pays!

Maybe you're making a pretty good go at it in this thread. You don't understand the difference between food for thought and telling people they are wrong. Maybe you don't understand the technique of offering optional ways of thinking. But, thanks for playing. Even the college kid is putting out food for thought in some of his posts. If someone says "I believe ," that's fine. It is likely true that they believe . If, however, they say " is the unvarnished truth," that is another thing altogether. The issue is not whether or not they believe (their claim may well be flamebait), but whether itself is true. If I lived in Kansas and claimed the belief that the earth was flat, that could be justified by the state being topographically flatter than a pancake, and one could well say "as far as you could tell, that makes sense." If, however, I stated as a fact that "the earth is flat," that could be subject to discussion. There are some who opine that the earth is neither flat, nor is it the center of the universe, and we could not burn them all at the stake before their heresy took hold. In any event, I will grant someone the right to adhere to a set of beliefs - hey, whatever gets you through the night. Believing something because it makes you happy makes sense, regardless of the veracity of the system of belief. The moment the line is crossed whereby someone claims that, because they believe something, it is true, I will likely take exception. I object to isms that include killing those who do not come into the fold and have an established track record of doing just that (Catholicism and Islam come to mind), and I am baffled by adherents of faiths whose fundamental claims are entirely verifiably false (Mormon, Scientology), but will happily let it go if they have the good taste to keep it to themselves. Religious convictions are like genitals. You have every right to have them, but it is appallingly bad manners to expose them in public. BSBD, Winsor

Sure. Post #142 comes to mind. Specifically: "Anyhow, there seem to be many in the recovery industry that would rather have someone die in addiction as a bad example than to get sober without religion." YMMV Particularly bad guess. AA is as effective for a skeptic as it is for a True Believer (tm), and if you think I said anything to the contrary, you are entirely mistaken. What I said was in no way a reflection of AA or any other 12 step program. I made reference to some people who make their livelihood from addiction (AA is all-volunteer below the GSA level), who seem to consider it a threat if anything works other than exactly what they prescribe. Some are sicker than others. AA has precious few rules, and a perusal of groups will show all kinds - some seem like a good idea at the time then drop off the scope, while others don't sound all that enlightened, but get results and stick around. If you read the Big Book, therein lies the tale of one of the founders who got sober, and died sober, as a skeptic. It was he that detuned the overwhelmingly religious tone of early AA, as inherited from the Oxford Group, and introduced the "Higher Power" concept. By the same token that a newcomer is not encouraged to give up smoking for a while ("first things first"), they should use whatever is their system of belief as a basis ("to thine own self be true"). Whether or not their system of beliefs have merit is irrelevant to the task at hand. If someone says they think all this religious stuff is horseshit, the response may well be fine, it's a program of honesty. You won't get far if you pretend to believe something you are convinced is wrong. One fundamental concept is that faith != belief. I may or may not believe that everything will work out for "the best" (whatever that might be), but I may still have faith that I can make the best of whatever comes my way. Another key concept is that spirituality != religion. One may be very much at peace with the world and in tune with their surroundings without accepting any religious dogma. I only know what I read in the papers, but you sure have me all wrong on what I do or do not condemn. BSBD, Winsor

They imagine all kinds of crazy things and give it important sounding words like metaphysical or supernatural to make it sound like it's something scientific. Yet not a shred of evidence exists to support their claims. And then you have insane reasoning like popsjumper that says that since by their own definition god can not be tested for, we should not ask for evidence. I assert that if there is no evidence then there is no reason to believe and in fact it is unreasonable to believe. Birds are proof that with enough hand-waving you can fly! Just don't jump off of anything while attempting to fly. Oh, ye of little faith...

They imagine all kinds of crazy things and give it important sounding words like metaphysical or supernatural to make it sound like it's something scientific. Yet not a shred of evidence exists to support their claims. And then you have insane reasoning like popsjumper that says that since by their own definition god can not be tested for, we should not ask for evidence. I assert that if there is no evidence then there is no reason to believe and in fact it is unreasonable to believe. Birds are proof that with enough hand-waving you can fly!

Try building a pyramid without the aid of Ra and get back to me. "Hail to the Sun God, he sure is a Fun God, Ra! Ra! Ra!"

I see your response as proof to my above stated point. I have only encountered self-determined alcoholics/addicts, that is those who believe they can get sober by their own will power, in the programs where I worked. We called them frequent flyers. For sure, I live in reality because I can't handle mood altering substances. Thanks to the grace of God through Christ, I don't have any desire to use. Edit to add: To get back on topic, you could say I have evolved to a higher level of survivability. I have seen a roughly equivalent turnover ratio in recovery of religious and non religious people. Unfortunately, the odds are not great for either; your label of "frequent fliers" would apply as easily to revolving-door recovery types from either group. I, too, have nothing to do with mood altering substances; if you have achieved success with or without reliance on a mythical construct, good on you. However, your statement relating "reality" with mythology is wonderfully ironic. "Survivability" is identical (certainly from a biological standpoint) for all comers. Since death (let's leave it at the physical level, shall we?) is inevitable, the trick is to live in the meantime, and booze and dope can amount to suicide on the installment plan. Your experience may or may not have been more profound than someone else's, but it is a bad plan to compare your insides with someone else's outsides. Take care with the "terminal uniqueness." BSBD, Winsor

I haven't seen that as being 'many'. Are there some? I can't help but believe it. There are bozos on all walks of life, yes. I have to ask...what is more important to you in this situation. - recovery - recovery with religion involved - recovery with no religion involved. ...assuming, of course that recovery is important to you in the first place. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that simple recovery would be more important to you. So then, I have to ask, why is it so important to you that the route taken towards that recovery should not involve religion? In a broader sense, why is it important to you that the route taken by others to achieve a measure of personal peace and happiness should not involve religion? You are more than welcome to take whatever route that fits your need. Why would you want to denigrate the route taken by others....regardless of your personal opinion of it. Wouldn't their personal peace and happiness be paramount? Would it be so impossible to simply say, "I'm happy as hell it worked out for you, bro! Congrats!" To be truthful, I can only think of reasons for the denigration that all reflect on the reasoner in a very negative light...and that's sad. I am all in favor of using whatever tools work. If someone uses their favorite Leprechaun to stop sniffing glue or getting comatose on Tequila, fine. Where I draw the line is when they then claim that correlation between results and the tool constitutes proof. "I no longer sniff glue or get comatose on tequila, therefore there are Leprechauns." By that logic, the Pyramids are more convincing proof of the existence of Ra than laying off booze and dope is of the existence of Leprechauns or other mythical constructs. If you say "my belief in has allowed me to ," then bully for you. If you say " is conclusive proof of ," I call bullshit. BSBD, Winsor

So, by that logic, the fact that I have not consumed any mind-altering substances for decades is conclusive proof that there is no basis for superstition? I don't think so. The fact that I do not drink, smoke, gamble or take drugs proves nothing in particular beyond that. Sure it does. It proves you never had the problem that I had. It seems that most skydivers would rather see a brother die in addiction than get sober through Christianity. Sounds a little like Cheech Marin: "I used to be all messed up on drugs, then I found th'lord. Now I'm all messed up on th'lord." I kind of prefer "Reality is nothing but a crutch for people who can't handle drugs." Anyhow, there seem to be many in the recovery industry that would rather have someone die in addiction as a bad example than to get sober without religion. Be advised, spirituality != religion. BSBD, Winsor

I have been walking with Jesus and sane since 16 Mar 81 and, straight, clean and sober since 26 Mar 83. That is all that holds meaning for me. So, by that logic, the fact that I have not consumed any mind-altering substances for decades is conclusive proof that there is no basis for superstition? I don't think so. The fact that I do not drink, smoke, gamble or take drugs proves nothing in particular beyond that.

If you love them, spay them. I am all for withholding welfare, afdc, food stamps, etc. from any and all personnel capable of reproducing. That includes the kids. If babymama has spawned a brood she is entirely unable to support, you have overshot sustainability by 1+offspring. Providing for REVERSIBLE sterilization would preclude further proliferation. If you cannot afford the procedure to reverse the sterilization during your childbearing years trust me, you can't afford kids. If you are so principled that you will forego any and all public assistance in the interest of having all the kids that are likely to be yours, that's great - it leaves more for others. Of course, this kind of policy would never pass, and I cringe to think of how it would shape up in practice if it did , but the reality is that unchecked breeding of unaffordable offspring is symptomatic of our ongoing downfall. Since the system is demonstrably out of control, and we are already way behind the power curve, it is safe to say we are hosed. BSBD, Winsor

Works for me. It would take some pretty powerful painkillers for me to tolerate U2.

I think it was Connecticut.

To the extent that 30:1 could be called a division; yes, you are right. You are hearing only a tiny fraction of what is being said about anthropogenic global warming. I'm a practicing scientist. I've been aware of AGW as an issue since 88, and I've been following the peer reviewed literature since 2003. There is no serious debate about the reality of AGW in the peer reviewed literature. The tiny handful of papers the skeptics have published have, to put it mildly, not held up well. The academic peer review system isn't perfect, but it is the best system anyone has ever come up with to separate the shit from the Shinola. Unfortunately there is another outlet for the shit. I had more than a passing familiarity with climate and ecology by the early '60s, long before dumbed-down versions became fashionable. If you want to compare your technical credentials with mine, you are welcome to do so. I have watched "Global Cooling" come and go, and watched "Global Warming" turn into "Climate Change." Whatever. Even granting that that Global Warming is a Real Problem, the suggested remedy is not the only, the best, or even a, solution. I agree that humanity has a significant effect upon the environment, by quite a variety of mechanisms. To focus on one in particular, to the exclusion of all others, is inane. Science is all about skepticism, and I hold suspect the results put forth by True Believers (tm) of any stripe. The dependence upon Really Smart Guys to figure things out for us has worked about as well for our economic system as is likely as it is for the environment (think of the children!). I may not be a Climate Scientist, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express (or approved equivalent) last night. BSBD, Winsor

The correct answer is "we are Devo."

Besides that, she's just a bozo anyway. Hey, that's a PA on Bozos! "My mother was a Bozoette in High School..."