Actually there are a lot of people that aren't "white" in Minnesota... well the Twin Cities area at least. If I'm not mistaken it has the largest population of Somali immigrants in the country. There's also a large Hmong and Hispanic community, as well as a large African American population. That said there's a lot of Scandinavians and Germans too.

As for the Carlson School of Mgmt... I can't stand that place. It's a school for taking spoiled little children that haven't worked a day in their lives and trains them to be the next generation of middle management, or worse, executives. Luckily the building is surrounded by the Arts Quarter, so at least they're outnumbered during their brief tenure at the U.

>> ^therealblankman:

Hey here's a question... are there any black people in Minnesota? If there are, apparently none of them go to this school.

@kceaton1

I wholly agree that I detest these once atheists that have literally taken what is normally a balanced "naught" position as to God(s) existence barring evidence and instead these anti-theists ditch that stance and deem that not only is all religion a wash, but any God is as well. They're very "militant" in nature and seem to draw in those that are less secure about their own opinions; kind of like the Westboro Baptists. Unfortunately, they are also very pro-active, boisterous, and vitriolic in nature--worse of all they call themselves atheists still, giving the rest of us a bad rap.

And they're everywhere. The only place that I can go and say anything about Christianity without being ridiculed is a Christian forum. This goes from the obvious places like atheist forums, to a place like this, to even the comments section on CNN.com. Antitheists seem to outnumber thoughtful atheists at least 100-1.

Some of them though are just plain tired of the charades they have had to play with men they worked with, people they once respected--but, those same people might as well put their workmate, friend, and neighbors into brutal conditions for a simple principle held: atheism. It's happened before, not as ruthless as it may have been in the earlier centuries, but black listing someone in a community can happen. I've seen it happen innumerable times first hand! I can't blame some for their outrage and pointed damnation they hold for others; it was created by those that may complain that the volume and acidity of their words may be too strong--or too true.

Some have been mistreated, and some are just on the hate bandwagon because they are angry, insecure people who scapegoat religion for the evil in the world. Much like an anarchist blames all the evil in the world on governments.

Of course religion has it's share of idiots as well. They are almost always the fundamentalists, like the Westboro clan. Papa (George H. W.) Bush once said that atheists should have no rights in the U.S.--if he had his way--they would not be citizens nor would they be patriots. Because, this is a nation "under God"--atleast after that was added. Maybe Papa Bush didn't know that historical part. Religion also has a grand stand in politics and the media. That is yet another thing that must be remembered is that when an anti-theist does speak it will outrage the religious; but, atheists, anti-theists (even Jews, Muslims, Hindu, Buddhism, etc...), endure the endless exposure and should be expected to remain quiet... Fox News is the epitome of which I speak as it is nothing more than a pulpit for the rich, white, Christian, American, white collar worker.

Stupidity, of course, is not exclusive to any particular group of people, but is common to all of them.

But, there is one more consideration that HAS to be mentioned. As this point gets me to go after religious people all the time. If this makes me anti-theist, because I voiced a concern over what is being said--then anti-theism is far more wide-spread and has NOTHING to do with atheism. I do think this may be a common misconception from just my general experiences on the messageboards, here and elsewhere.

The problem is: Science!

This is especially true for all of the fundamental type religions. They all have a huge laundry list of minor science flaws to HUGE science flaws. Fundamentalism Christianity in the U.S. tends to take the lead in this war of fact versus opinion. There are plenty of fully qualified scientists out there that are religious, but ones that tend to go against the full body of evidence and scientific community to prove a religious claim tend to be "not fully qualified". They tend to use full scientific data and factual evidence to create a new theor...I mean hypothesis (many will try to use "theory", but their reason for their arrival at the new understanding tends to have no basis) and inject a very large amount of opinion, sprinkled with some facts. One such example is the red-shift video provided above by @shinyblurry .

The video I posted does have a basis, the phenomena was legitimately observed:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0606294

Obviously it isn't conclusive, but it definitely has merit and should be explored rather than dismissed. I would really like to know the difference between something like this and the pure speculation accepted as fact in big bang cosmology, such as the existence of dark matter and dark energy. They are little more than fudge factors, as well as cosmic inflation, to account for the glaring holes that don't fit observation. That isn't science, but you excuse it because..?

Science can become a VERY heated area of topic when it comes to religion. This begins when a religion: tries to debunk a theory or a part of it, to commandeer a theory and direct a new conclusion to fit an already preconceived destination which has not been peer-reviewed or tested, repeating scientific theories in religious pamphlets or media while purposefully undermining the theory by not presenting in full and correct context or actually printing falsehoods, lying about the nature of scientific testing, repetitiously incorrectly stating current stances on various theories (like radio-carbon dating, etc...), attempts by any churches through the state to eliminate the teaching of branches of science--especially ones that have been tested so much that have attained the rank of THEORY (Evolution, etc...), again the use of lying in media against science--this has reached every facet of media-large and small.

Here's the problem with the so called theory of evolution. What Darwin observed was microevolution, not macroevolution. He observed that species will adapt to their environments. That is scientific fact, and a great discovery. What he did from there is speculate that because species adapt to their environments, that those adaptations would lead to new species, and therefore, that all life has a common ancestor. Since it wasn't something that could be observed, what was supposed to prove his theory would be evidence from the fossil record. There was only one problem with that:

innumerable transitional forms must have existed but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? ..why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?

Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps is the greatest objection which can be urged against my theory.

Charles Darwin
Origin of the Species

The total lack of transitional fossils was a complete embarrassment to Darwin. The excuse made was that because the record was so poor, more time was needed to unearth the fossils. Here we are 150 years later, and those transitional forms have failed to materialize. The fossil record is composed mainly of gaps. It also defies all the predictions of gradualism. All the major body types appeared suddenly in the Cambrian explosion without any discernable evolutionary history, and they appeared highly diversified. All the major phyla, classes, orders etc were there at the beginning. Species appear suddenly in stasis and leave just as suddenly. Macroevolution is not science, it has never been observed nor can it be tested. It is a just-so story which does not fit observation.

Christians don't have a problem with science, they have a problem with what isn't science. Macroevolution was a giant leap made by Darwin for which there was no evidence, and the fossil record does not match the predictions of the theory. Because of this, evolutionists have moved away from the fossil record and have used other lines of evidences to prove macroevolution, like common genetics in our DNA. The problem with that is, common genetics also indicates a common designer, and is better indicated by it actually, because of the mosaic pattern we observe in the genome.

I'm sure there are more. History has been a great use to show us what religion WILL do to science, even though all that is being shown is the truth. It truly is a dangerous weapon. If you can't except truth what hope do we have for you. Yes you can be a good person, but somehow you're flawed, unable to except reality.

Historically the church supported scientific inquiry. Science got its start in Christian Europe, and many of the greatest scientists were devout Christians.

When I was a believer (no matter what @shinyblurry says I was; I was Mormon and shiny seems to believe that his religious path is of course a T3 hard-line; were as Mormons just get the basic 56k dial-up...) I FELT the presence of God, or more accurately The Holy Ghost. I had no problem believing in everything science told me when I was religious. I knew it was the truth and I knew that God would not want me to ignore the grand insights into the workings of his masterpiece. I could feel in my soul, the first year I had physics, that something profound had just happened. I had found something I had been searching for my whole life. I felt connected to everything. I began to dismiss those that were religious around me and disliked evolution--to me evolution was so simple and yet such a wondrous way to create the most complex of things from literally the simplest. A literal masterpiece. So I do know that some can believe all that science says, but it's very hard in Christianity.

There are two kingdoms in this world, the kingdom of darkness and the Kingdom of Heaven, and they are both supernatural kingdoms. You can get a supernatural experience in a false religion, but it is just a corrupt copy of the real thing. Were you feeling a burning sensation in your chest? What you were feeling wasn't the Holy Spirit, or the presence of God, but the false spirit that pervades the mormon church. The presence of God is something that goes beyond feelings and sensations. This is how people get duped into false religions, because they get a spiritual experience from a false spirit.

I grew up secular, and when I became a Christian I was more than willing to accept the conclusions of science. I had believed them all my life because they had been taught to me as factual. I was even willing to intergrate them into my faith. It was only after investigating these things that I found, to my shock, that there wasn't any actual evidence for these things, and that they were neither testable or observerd. I changed my mind based on my investigation of the facts and not because of any religious duty. I would still believe it if I thought there was convincing evidence, but it isn't there.

Since you're scientifically minded, let me give you a challenge. You appear to be quite confident that evolution is proven true, so if that is the case, see if you can refute the arguments in this book:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0890510628/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&seller=

So I hope I made a point with this. Anti-theism comes from quite a few directions. The most usual and common sight is that you'll see between someone defending scientific theories, while the less common will be those that have been directly burned by the religious community they most likely once belonged to. The last is of course what was brought up in earlier posts: atheists who turn into anti-theists. They tend to be the kind that will assert that religion is evil no matter how small or insignificant it may play a role in someones life.

It's because they have no idea how much of western civilization is built upon Christian principles and philosophy. What they need to do is educate themselves:

http://www.amazon.com/Book-that-Made-Your-World/dp/1595553223

In the end most atheists boil down to this:

Stephen speaking to a religious friend...
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

~Stephen Roberts

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^TheFreak:
Don't know what's been happening with tae kwon do in the past decade. It's developed this strange focus on ineffective spinning-jumping kicks. More like gymnastics than martial arts.
Government interference is what happened.
First they pressured the separate kwons to unify in an attempt to form one universal Korean martial art. This is what created TKD (in name, at least). Then they sought ways to make it a symbol of the country, to give the Korean people something to be proud of. Ultimately this culminated in an effort to introduce it to the Olympics. In order to accomplish this, they had to turn it into a sport. The military style of TKD still exists but, aside from the actual military, it's hard to find anywhere that teaches it inside Korea.
I have a friend who is from South Korea. He was adopted and brought to the US when he was still a baby. He's a TKD black belt. He's taken trips back to Korea and he's sparred with people who have learned TKD there and they are all horrible because they've been taught to dance rather than fight.
The only fighting they know is point fighting so they do not learn to defend and they do not learn how to generate power. They are incredibly fast but, in a real fight, he had no doubts that they would pose little to no threat unless he was greatly outnumbered.


Interesting, I was unaware of most of that.

I was talking to one of my older Aikido students last night who's been teaching TKD for a long time. I'd judge his style as very martial and effective based on the punches and kicks he was using while we compared notes. We were discussing how the tai sabaki from Aikido has influenced his TKD and I asked him about the change in TKD. He brushed it off and pointed out how he teaches both point fighting and martial effectiveness and distinguishes between the two to his students. His only thoughts on the current state of some TKD was that it was a passing fad.

>> ^TheFreak:

Don't know what's been happening with tae kwon do in the past decade. It's developed this strange focus on ineffective spinning-jumping kicks. More like gymnastics than martial arts.

Government interference is what happened.

First they pressured the separate kwons to unify in an attempt to form one universal Korean martial art. This is what created TKD (in name, at least). Then they sought ways to make it a symbol of the country, to give the Korean people something to be proud of. Ultimately this culminated in an effort to introduce it to the Olympics. In order to accomplish this, they had to turn it into a sport. The military style of TKD still exists but, aside from the actual military, it's hard to find anywhere that teaches it inside Korea.

I have a friend who is from South Korea. He was adopted and brought to the US when he was still a baby. He's a TKD black belt. He's taken trips back to Korea and he's sparred with people who have learned TKD there and they are all horrible because they've been taught to dance rather than fight.

The only fighting they know is point fighting so they do not learn to defend and they do not learn how to generate power. They are incredibly fast but, in a real fight, he had no doubts that they would pose little to no threat unless he was greatly outnumbered.

Yes.

Got mugged once. Was pepper-sprayed right in the eye. Stings like a bitch. And it's slippery so no matter how tight you try to shut your eyes, it gets in, and in your nose, and your mouth. You think that you might not be able to breath, but you breath anyway, and it gets in further.

Tears will pour out of your eyes, and you will cry and cry and cry, but it won't help. You have to flush it out with cold water--and it will take hours to get it all out--though I hear milk or diluted maalox works better.

After a few minutes and brief struggle, I was able to get up and chase down the kids who attacked me. There's only so much you can do when you're outnumbered four to one, and having trouble seeing. I did succeed in scarring the crap out of them. Imagine them seeing the guy they thought they just took out chase them down for four city blocks AND catch them, in spite of a head start. I managed to get some of my stuff back and my wallet, though, they made off with my backpack and some money. Heh. Adrenaline is a hell of a drug.

When pepper spray is used it is almost always a weapon for assault, not for defence. The incidents I see on here haven't changed my mind of that. The talking heads on this video have no idea what they speak of.>> ^TheSofaKing:

Have you?
>> ^notarobot:
These talking heads have never been pepper-sprayed, have they?

One deer says to the other, we're three times his size and outnumber him at least a dozen to one, why the fuck are we running?

Complete waffle.

You are making nearly all of this up.

>> ^NaMeCaF:

I love how there's no context offered in this clip or by the "reporter".
These protesters said they were peaceful and would leave when asked. They were left alone and allowed full freedom to practice their protest. Days later, when they were finally asked to leave the protesters went back on their word and ignored all requests to vacate the area, instead planting themselves and refusing to move.
Finally after repeated requests to leave peacefully, a small number of police were called in to try and encourage them to move on. However when the police arrived, the protesters started hurling abuse and called everyone they knew (on sites like facebook, etc) to come down and outnumber the cops.
Of course the cops had to call in reinforcements of their own to ensure a full scale riot wouldn't break out (hence the riot and search and rescue police) and were tasked with using reasonable force to physically move the protesters who had well worn out their welcome. Of course this last few minutes is all that is reported and posted up here.
Disgrace.

I love how there's no context offered in this clip or by the "reporter".

These protesters said they were peaceful and would leave when asked. They were left alone and allowed full freedom to practice their protest. Days later, when they were finally asked to leave the protesters went back on their word and ignored all requests to vacate the area, instead planting themselves and refusing to move.

Finally after repeated requests to leave peacefully, a small number of police were called in to try and encourage them to move on. However when the police arrived, the protesters started hurling abuse and called everyone they knew (on sites like facebook, etc) to come down and outnumber the cops.

Of course the cops had to call in reinforcements of their own to ensure a full scale riot wouldn't break out (hence the riot and search and rescue police) and were tasked with using reasonable force to physically move the protesters who had well worn out their welcome. Of course this last few minutes is all that is reported and posted up here.

Disgrace.

>> ^The_Ham:

>> ^criticalthud:
i'm not sure any of them really knew the implications of what they were doing. Dropping that bomb was also very much about the future war between capitalism and communism...between two schools of economic dominance. At the time, Soviet divisions in Europe outnumbered American by a staggering amount.


Government: Dr. Feynman, we're going to need you to make a huge bomb.
Feynman: I wonder what the implications of making this huge bomb are? Oh well, der de derrrrr.


Forgive me if I fail to pass judgment on this man, who has contributed so much to science.

>> ^criticalthud:

i'm not sure any of them really knew the implications of what they were doing. Dropping that bomb was also very much about the future war between capitalism and communism...between two schools of economic dominance. At the time, Soviet divisions in Europe outnumbered American by a staggering amount.



Government: Dr. Feynman, we're going to need you to make a huge bomb.

Feynman: I wonder what the implications of making this huge bomb are? Oh well, der de derrrrr.

i'm not sure any of them really knew the implications of what they were doing. Dropping that bomb was also very much about the future war between capitalism and communism...between two schools of economic dominance. At the time, Soviet divisions in Europe outnumbered American by a staggering amount.

>> ^lantern53:

Police beating rioters.
Seems like a fair trade, I mean, you go out and set fires and destroy buildings, overturn cars, commit mayhem and murder, and you expect the police to say, c'along then, you're under arrest?
You outnumber the cops. Let's make it interesting and call it a fair trade.


Fiver to the first one to spot a rioter in this video.

>> ^lantern53:

Police beating rioters.
Seems like a fair trade, I mean, you go out and set fires and destroy buildings, overturn cars, commit mayhem and murder, and you expect the police to say, c'along then, you're under arrest?
You outnumber the cops. Let's make it interesting and call it a fair trade.


What rioters? There were protests, but I'm not reading any reports of fires or destroyed property. I know they're all Yerp-peans, but I think you're a bit behind on events.

Police beating rioters.

Seems like a fair trade, I mean, you go out and set fires and destroy buildings, overturn cars, commit mayhem and murder, and you expect the police to say, c'along then, you're under arrest?

You outnumber the cops. Let's make it interesting and call it a fair trade.