winsor

Same way I concluded there is no Santa Claus and honestly I came to that conclusion at roughly the same age. As I got older and started studying mythology and science it became apparent to me that they both did the same thing, but came to wildly different conclusions. A person didn't need Zeus to explain thunderbolts coming from the clouds as long he understood how raindrops created static charges. As more and more of the universe was explained to me, it was clear there was simply no reason to think that one or any gods were required for it to work. Then there's the history of how religious leaders and kings controlled people. Religious leaders claiming knowledge of god's will, kings claiming a fiat from god had placed them into power and both promising a "better" life as long as you followed their orders in this one. Kind of the macro version and parallel to the Santa Claus is Coming to Town song. So, to me, pretty much all religion is about controlling people's behavior and a belief in god is simply not required at all since I can understand the science of it and can easily discount the mythology. I do understand that it can bring some people comfort and if the mother of a dying child finds comfort in praying for his soul, that's fine. What I can not tolerate are the TV preachers that ask people to send in money "for god" and then live the highlife off of other people's faith. Even more so, I can not tolerate any political leader that says he was told to start a war or says he has the backing of god. That's clearly just rubbish and again preying on those who pray. Contrary to what people may think as a result of the back and forth on this web forum, I really have no beef with the people that are simply looking for answers and think they can find them through god. It's when they force the issue that the gloves come off. While Paul and I do not see eye to eye across the board, this pretty much sums it up.

You STILL off on that "proof" idiocy? For God's sake, man, WAKE UP! It's embarrassing! As well it should be. Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Wonderful. Not only is the govt trying to run the economy, they're profiting from it, also. You missed the point - "the Fed" is not an agency of the US Government. It is a private enterprise, created specifically to do an end run around the Constitution. If the Fed was a Governmental entity, it would be patently illegal. In order to have an unlimited credit line, the US Government gave away the store a long time ago. When people talk about "fixes" to our fiscal plight, they completely underestimate how thoroughly fucked we are. It has taken decades of pissing away money we did not have in the first place to put us in such bad shape, and nobody has even hinted at a means by which we can halt our inexorable rush to disaster. Even if we quit spending more than we make right now, we are beyond the tipping point. I wish I was wrong, but I am not. BSBD, Winsor

They keep them. A consortium of private banks, the Fed is neither federal nor a reserve. BSBD. Winsor

Your discussion of Scientific Orthodoxy in unflattering terms is ill advised. You may think your standpoint is well considered and justified, but you are uncomfortably close to Blasphemy/Heresy. Just a heads-up.

They're all here.

In certain circles, I consider being called a "bigot" (or "racist" or whatever) to be a compliment. If I meet the approval of these folks, it is a clear indication that I am doing something wrong.

Do you also have a car that drives drunk? My car runs on 10% ethanol. That is like table wine. Even if you take into account body mass, the amount of liquor it's wolfing down at highway speeds is substantial. I don't happen to drink, but my vehicles are routinely snockered. BSBD, Winsor

I doubt you know what different people consider the appropriate weapon for personal protection. Hint: Hand guns have their limitations. Are you saying an AK-47 is an appropriate weapon for personal protection? That generally you'd carry one around with you at all times if you could? Yes, in certain situations it most definitely would be used for personal protection. Suppose there was a large terrorist attack, or natural disaster, would you rather have a .22 pistol or an AK47? Let's look back to the Rodney King riots in LA. When groups of people intent upon Wealth Redistribution came seeking donations, two scenarios played out. 1) "Shit, ain't nothin' but a .22. I been shot by one o' them befo' - no biggie" 2) "Yo, he got him a mothafuckin' AK-47! Feets don' fail me now!" Your pick. BSBD, Winsor

Damn those Koch brothers and the 50,000 jobs they have polluted America with. All I know for certain is that they are Bad People. Amazon has made that crystal clear.

lead poisoning, eh? I would have thought the edged weapons would have had a lead, but can't argue with a physics professor. The US is not a knife culture. It is a somewhat violent culture, but blades are not the weapon of choice. Knives are deadlier than firearms in that if you are attacked by one you are more likely to be killed, but firearms are used in more homicides each year. The professor has his numbers correct, but his conclusion wrong, as usual. Guns don't cause homicide any more than cameras cause porn or cars cause wrecks. Spoons made Rosie O'Donell fat.

Hey, I really couldn't care less either way. I just figured that any mention of the Koch brothers in a negative light would make Amazon's day. We are so far past the tipping point in this country that the only benefit one can get from the process is entertainment value (or it can serve as an emetic, as the case may be). BSBD, Winsor

I am not even going touch this one. This one either.

I like Blondie, but "Rapture" sucked. It is one of the few songs where I reflexively hit "skip."

Look, if someone wants to be reigious, fine. I really don't care who or what one might choose to sleep with, either. OTOH, when people of one group or another seek to impose their stance on me, I have a problem with that. The fact that I am not fascinated by someone's sexuality (or lack thereof), or the details of their relationahip with one imaginary friend or another, is not a matter of phobia - it is simply too much information. If someone says "I'm Episcopalian" or "I'm gay," fine. If they want to further bend my ear about how every other religion has it wrong, or how their sexuality is truly wonderful, they have lost their audience - it just is not my concern. Having lived around religious people and folks of varying sexuality my whole life, I reserve the right to have an opinion on the subject. In most cases, the short form is "it's not my bag," and that covers it. If someone gets evangelistic on me, or if some guy assumes I am simply playing hard-to-get, I am given to being more blunt. When people make the mistake of trying to justify delusions by "logic," they make themselves too easy targets. Saying "I believe" is fine, but saying "it is the 'truth' because..." is over the line. BSBD, Winsor

There is a fundamental flaw in using logic to address a system of belief: religion is by nature a Disease of Denial.

It's never been answered over and over for you Kallend. You guys need some new material...bad... FIFY

He's dimmer than an energy saving lightbulb. Perhaps - but blinding by comparison, nevertheless.

He should respect other views and beliefs the same way you respect his? Hes an Atheist he has no belief, unless you consider atheism to be a belief system in which case that would be a religion in its own right. I respect his right to believe in nothing at all but I maintain the right to an opinion of my own. The difference is that I have not set up a series of angry hateful videos all over the internet decrying and denigrating those who chose to believe in no God. Aw, you're just jealous of the fact that he's kind of witty. I don't get the impression that Pat is trying to convert anyone, he just takes the opportunity to make fun of the weak-minded. Not very politically correct, I'll grant you, but entertaining to those not afflicted with superstition. BSBD, Winsor

If the religious would get martyred en masse? Works for me.

My mother was a bozoette in high school.

Actually, we have. Further, it's not all that hard to understand the basics of it. Just because you seem to have not made the effort to do so doesn't mean its not out there. Here are some of the basics to get you started; http://curiosity.discovery.com/topic/space-exploration/did-god-create-universe-episode.htm Yeah, like I said before, it's still all speculation. "What ifs, Maybes, Might, Couldas" What we have in essence, even if we allow the "it might be possible for the universe to spring into existence" is not from nothing, but from the very laws of the Universe. That's hardly coming from nothing at all. Why should those laws even exist outside where we are at? We could run that train of thought all over the place, and even the vids you linked to state we haven't the slightest clue on explaining said laws or their existence. If everything you believe is bullshit layered upon bullshit, I can see how you might assume that everyone else is subject to similar limitations. That is, however, not the case. The argument that an in invisible friend MUST exist to account for the existence of everything, since it is impossible for anything to exist without explanation - except for an invisible friend - is not just invalid, it is insane. BSBD, Winsor

Not only that, but they have WMDs (we're talking thermonuclear devices out the wazoo). I say we should invade them before it's too late.

Science hasn't done any such thing. We haven't even begun to really understand how the universe works, let alone what really took place in the beginning, let alone what did or did not cause the Universe to come into being. What's out there in literature right now is nothing more than vague speculation and guesswork. If you read comic books, sure, it would seem so. However, the level of correlation at the cutting edge of research is nothing short of remarkable. Almost none of these data show up in pictorial form. You want vague? Scare up some heavily redacted archaic accounts and you're all set. BSBD, Winsor

At the outset of hostilities in Europe some time back, a stick of bombs was released on the wrong target in Guernica, hitting a market square, and a failed recall order resulted in another stick of bombs being dropped on a margarine factory in Rotterdam. Both of these incidents were not scripted, and caused relatively little damage in the grand scheme of things, but were treated as the acts of evil at the hands of monsters in the propaganda generated in response. Fast forward a few short years. Dresden, a city of trivial military value whose numbers were swollen by the influx of refugees, was flattened by combined efforts of the RAF and the USAAF as an object lesson. We did it because we could. Curtis W. LeMay made great strides in his stated intent to "reduce the Japanese population by half," BEFORE the use of nukes. Then you have the use of nukes on population centers, ostensibly for "shock and awe" purposes (though the popular versions claim that it worked, detailed analyses refute this supposition). The point to all this is that, for all our outrage at actions when taken against us, we are happy to engage in behavior every bit as bad if it suits us. We villified the KGB for their "wet work," killing "rogue" dissidents on foreign soil, but claim justification when we do the same damned thing. Don't get me wrong, I am quite pleased that various people who have declared jihad against us have been given the opportunity to see the quality of virgins that await them in paradise, but I am uneasy with the process by which this has taken place. Operation Phoenix was the brainchild of some bright-eyed deep-thinker, where villagers would finger "VC" and special ops types would sneak in and kill them. It turned out that most villagers were not stupid enough to alienate actual VC, but were happy to use the opportunity to resolve long standing feuds, obtain land, eliminate romantic rivals and so forth. I am concerned that our zeal in eliminating people who piss us off will again be harnessed by people whose agenda do not resemble ours even slightly. Our system of checks and balances is massively flawed. It is, however, a vast improvement on any system lacking checks and balances. At any rate, while I approve of these people being removed from the rolls of the living, I am very concerned with the approach taken to do so. Every time this kind of policy has been utilized by a government in the past the results have been the same, and I have a sneaking suspicion that it will prove to be the case this time as well. If we want the moral high ground, we have to follow the rules. If we do not, we have no right to bitch. You can't have it both ways. BSBD, Winsor