>> ^A10anis:

God had nothing to do with it. It wasn't a prayer answered, nor was it a miracle from god. It was the result of an unselfish donation, which allowed highly skilled doctors to perform the true "miracle" of science.


Whatever helps her through her grief perhaps? Atheists can also be humanists unconcerned with the reverence and respect for faith and the divine that others have, whatever their grasp or intelligence.

The question would be, "Can you be a socially-acceptable and respectful atheist and keep from saying something similar in insectoid, atheist form which would belittle the woman's faith in God during her grief, or would you simply rant at the first mention of some higher power, like most obnoxious atheist motherfuckers do??

I cried for a solid 2 hours when Optimus Prime died in the Transformers movie. I was literally inconsolable with grief. To be fair, this is Optimus Fucking Prime I am talking about here, not Timmy Green (whoever the fuck that loser is....I'm glad he's dead I SAID IT).

>> ^ponceleon:

BTW, have you seen the new "mini" coopers? They are effin SUVs... sigh this country is so stupid with its giant car obsession...
The Countryman? Good grief, indeed.

Good grief. I love his bullshit segments, but that mask just has to go.

we need more grief on television. more real emotion. more reality and the healing that comes from facing it -- from coming together.

We're not going to get any wiser until we can get there.

together.

*speak the grief

Yeah! Cry like you mean it! Real manipulators DO IT FOR REAL.

I can sense the "offness" in her "grief". Of course that may be because I already know it's fake.

All it takes is a bucket of water and the "problem" is solved.

Good grief.

Good grief.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

>> ^poolcleaner:
>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
Just open the register and put your hands up. The money's insured, and doesn't belong to you anyway - it's your employer's and so isn't worth dying for. The line between "brave" and "stupid" is very blurry, and the line between "coward/living" and "brave/stupid/dead" is very easily crossed.

This guy did it for himself. He's fucking awesome and this will get him laid for years to come. I quote: "He made him clean up his own blood while he was waiting for police and paramedics."

If that was why he did it, then that's a pretty selfish reason to risk your life. Think of your friends and family - why would you put them through all the grief and stress of having to deal with that, just for the sake of your employer's money, which is insured anyway?
Of course, I don't think that's why he did it, anyway. People don't think like that in a crisis - but discretion is the better part of valour. I'd rather be a living chicken than a dead duck, so I'd let the guy take the money.


I didn't say it was justified. Just that regardless of his indiscretion he came out better for it and will likely benefit over the long term. Unless hubris strikes and he dies doing something even dumber. Seriously. Become a soldier, get a medal, bang chicks. Or become a solider, die, your family gets a medal to remember your heroic efforts. Idealism versus the true nature of reality. Stop complaining. You're right, but it doesn't matter and people will behave however the fuck they want to.

>> ^poolcleaner:

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
Just open the register and put your hands up. The money's insured, and doesn't belong to you anyway - it's your employer's and so isn't worth dying for. The line between "brave" and "stupid" is very blurry, and the line between "coward/living" and "brave/stupid/dead" is very easily crossed.

This guy did it for himself. He's fucking awesome and this will get him laid for years to come. I quote: "He made him clean up his own blood while he was waiting for police and paramedics."

If that was why he did it, then that's a pretty selfish reason to risk your life. Think of your friends and family - why would you put them through all the grief and stress of having to deal with that, just for the sake of your employer's money, which is insured anyway?

Of course, I don't think that's why he did it, anyway. People don't think like that in a crisis - but discretion is the better part of valour. I'd rather be a living chicken than a dead duck, so I'd let the guy take the money.

>> ^messenger:
So, how is you believing that you have a superior intellect to someone who believes in God not pride?

Read it again. Nobody claimed to have a superior intellect to anyone else. The contrast is between using our intellect and not using it. As Galileo famously put it, "I do not feel obliged to believe that that same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use." Now, he was talking from the perspective of a person of faith who simply didn't believe the bible or church teachings anymore but certainly did still believe in God. We are speaking as people with sense, reason and intellect who don't see sufficient evidence to come to the conclusion that God might reasonably exist.

It's the entire contention that someone who believes in God is not using their sense, reason and intellect that is prideful. Did you know that 40 percent of biologists, physicists and mathematicians believe in a personal God? Some extremely intelligent people believe in a Creator, and they can back up their beliefs with logical evidence. You see theists through a grossly distorted lens created by your own prejudice, and it blinds you. Galileo, by the way, did believe the bible; what he didn't buy is the catholic interpretation of it, and rightly so.

>> ^messenger:
Since there is no empirical evidence for or against Gods existence, how do you calculate how likely or unlikely His existence is?

The lack of evidence for existence is a non-concrete kind of evidence for the lack of existence. So the overwhelming lack of evidence for God is a bloody strong case. Everywhere we look in nature, we continue not to find God.

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Although I think there is evidence, such as fine tuning and information in DNA. In any case, do you honestly believe you can point an instrument at God and say "there he is!". Is this idea not fundamentally ridiculous? I think what youre confusing is mechanism with agency. You think because you describe a mechanism, how something works in a mechanical sense, somehow it rules out an Agent. God says He upholds the entire Universe; that He is the one that keeps the atoms from flying apart. How does mechanism rule out Gods agency?

Not only that, but if God created the Universe, do you realize that the entire Universe is evidence of Gods existence? The question I would put to you is, how would you tell the difference? How would you know you're looking at a Universe God didn't create? What would you expect that to look like?

What about the laws of logic? Where do they come from? If they're only in our brains, subject to constant flux, then what is rationality? It isn't anything you can trust if what you believe is true. Therefore all of your arguments fall apart. You have nothing in your worldview that can explain it, yet I can explain it. I know there is an omnipotent God who made us in His image, and we are rational beings because He is a rational being.

>> ^messenger:
Please, stop talking about science. You really do not understand it. You sound like a religious sceptic spouting crap about the bible. Really, what you say about science is just non-verified faither talking points. All science is based only on observation and drawing generalized inferences from that. "Theories" are just that. The strength of a scientific theory is roughly [how well it predicts other things] ÷ [how many things you have to just accept]. The belief in a particular atomic structure for oxygen has many predictions, which are testable and have largely been shown reliably true. So the atomic structure of an oxygen atom is a generally accepted theory, even though we will never be able to sense it directly. It's scientific. On those same grounds, the theory of evolution is also a strong theory in science. It has very few conjectures (three simple ones, I believe I heard Dawkins once say), it generates predictions, the predictions are testable, and they affirm the theory. Saying that evolution is untestable is as ridiculous as saying we haven't investigated every oxygen atom, so the model of the atom is untestable, and therefore unscientific.

If you understood it better than I do then you would know what macro evolution is. The scientific method uses empirical evidence, which comes from empirical experimentation or observation. There is no experiment to prove macro evolution, nor can it be empirically observed. It is simply an unjustified extrapolation from micro evolution (which is proven beyond a reasonable doubt), and based on nothing but inferences from *circumstantial* evidence and not evidence based on empirical observation.

Many people have this conception that the theory of common descent is as certain and proven as 2 + 2 = 4, or as Sepacore put it:

"once claimed to be a book of literal truth, becomes more and more metaphorical as science stomps its way all over the human races ignorance of the universe reaching greater level's of understandings that are testable through mathematical predictions"

That is certainly how it is taught in schools, as absolute fact, and that's why I believed it too. It's when you stop looking at their conclusions and see the actual data they base them on that you will get the shock of your life. Yes, you're right, the theory makes a few predictions, all of which have turned out to be wrong..such as this:

The main cause, however, of innumerable intermediate links not now occurring everywhere throughout nature depends on the very process of natural selection, through which new varieties continually take the places of and exterminate their parent-forms. But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then 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 most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.

Darwin

Darwin predicted that for his theory to be true, there must be innumerable transitional forms in the fossil record. What have we found?:


"Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record. That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, .., prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search... One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's prediction. Nor is the problem a miserly fossil record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong.
N. Eldredge and I. Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, pg 45-46.

What we find is that creatures appear in stasis, and enter and leave the fossil record abruptly with no changes.

Another prediction is a start from simple to complex, with an increase of diversity of the phyla over a long period of time.

"Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably longer than the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day; and during these vast, yet quite unknown periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures. To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer."
Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, 1st edition, pg 307.

What we find is that all of the phyla we have today all abruptly appeared in the "cambrian explosion"

"The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs ... "
S. Gould, The Panda's Thumb, pg 238, 239.

This is just the tip of the iceberg for how poor a theory macroevolution actually is, but you won't have a shortage of true believers in it, even though they don't even understand what evidence it is based on. I do know something about science, and although I am a layman, I am perfectly capable of understanding of what makes a sound theory, and what doesn't. I would believe in macroevolution if the evidence supported it. Not only does it not support it, but it actually argues against it. It is shocking to someone who has been indoctrinated (like I was), but if you want to talk about fairy stories, macroevolution is a whale of a tale.

I think his ownership of the paypal account was another key mistake. He should have his companies structured so that if one business goes down, his personal assets or his other businesses aren't threatened.

Looking at the other video about him losing $500k in a Limo business, he seems to make alot of really painful but rudimentary mistakes. It's disappointing because I was expecting him to have made the losses on some unique or unforeseen circumstance, not due to lack of basic hygiene.

$1000 in business night courses or a library card could have saved him nearly a million dollars of grief.

Edit: or $2000 for a basic consultation from a business lawyer and a CPA.

Well, despite your condescending tone, you at least have a quote and make a valid point. Nice work.

I'll try to wrap my tiny brain around these life-shattering ideas. I'm not sure how well I'll do after how soundly you made fun of my education, or lack thereof. I thought I had a pretty good public school education. Thank you for showing me the light, that I was obviously the victim of liberal elites who spent too much time getting us to read and think rather than indoctrinating us. We didn't focus too much on what religion early Americans subscribed to, we just learned what they did. They called this "history." Maybe I'll come to an epiphany and find that I too want to write a revisionist history showing how all the founding fathers were really ancient pre-neo-cons, who went on religious crusades to oust any shred of diversion from the One True Faith from this, God's greatest country of all time. Amen.

But, until I get to that, might as well spout my hippie babble…

First, I'm not going to do your little workbook assignment. I grant, and did grant in my previous posts, that many of the founders could be considered "Christians." I'll also grant that Washington, Jefferson and Adams all went to church regularly and, at the birth of our country, "going to church" was a common social activity.

In this way, religion was woven into the fabric of American society. This is why, in my previous posts, I never said that all the founders were deists or non-believers, but that they understood deism and let it inform their understanding of their own, personal religion. More importantly, they let deism inform how they set up American government.

It would be incredulous if I had suggested that these men outright rejected Christianity. They did not, nor is it the purpose of the establishment clause to reject any religious sect (the establishment clause, and Santorum's misinterpretation of it, you'll remember, is the main subject of this comment thread).

As I said, you cite some valid evidence that the concept of god has always been a part of our government. But, you also haphazardly claim long-dead men to be zealous Christians when there are plenty of primary source documents to suggest they were not. I'm saving my big quote for something that has to do with the establishment clause directly, so you'll have to do your own homework if you want to find the many instances where all of the men you reference criticize organized religion. They are there, and if you like, we can have a quote war in later posts.

Here's my long quote response to you, more on topic than yours, I think:

"Gentlemen,

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem."
-TJ 1802

I think this gets to the heart of the matter better than you or I ever could. For you, it shows that Jefferson wasn't shy about using religious rhetoric and proclaiming that he believed enough in Christianity to appeal to this group of clergymen on their home turf.

For me, it shows exactly (though more aptly worded than I could pull off) the point I and others have been making in this comment thread. Not that the founders were without religion, but that they realized the danger of letting religious "opinions" guide legislative policy. It speaks volumes of their intellect that these men, even when living in a society where being religiously aligned was the norm, even having attended seminary and church on a regular basis, still sought fit to vote against aligning their new country to any one religious sect.

This is why some of us get bent out of shape when Santorum proves his ignorance on this issue. He may understand the establishment clause, but if so, he presents his position as an appeal to ultra-religious citizens. When he addresses arguments against his stance, he interprets them as "a religious person cannot participate in government."

I'll say it again: Religious citizens have just as much right to participate in government as anyone else. But, their opinions, if they are to be considered in an official capacity, must stand on their own merit. Laws are not just if their only basis is: Jesus says so.

You're a smart guy, right? You have all that fancy schooling. So, tell me you get this.

Finally, if you would, please expand on your comment: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

I'm curious on who you consider "moral and religious" and what we should do with those heathens who aren't.



>> ^shinyblurry:

I'm sorry to tell you but you're a victim of poor public education. The government was never intended to be secular, it was intended to represent the people it served, people who were and still are predominantly Christian.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
John Adams
As far as Deism goes, go ahead and make your case. I'll just warn you that the evidence is not in your favor. Most of the founders were Christians, some of them even attended seminary.
Before you reply, try answering these questions if you can:
1) Why did the first session of congress open with a 3 hour prayer and bible study?
2) Why did George Washington make this proclamation honoring the constitution?
"By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation.
Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor-- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.
Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be-- That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks--for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation--for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war--for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed--for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted--for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.
and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions-- to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually--to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed--to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord--To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us--and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.
Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.
Go: Washington"
3) If Jefferson intended for church and state to be seperate, why did he attend church every sunday..in the house of representitives?
4) If Jefferson intended for church and state to be seperate, why did he sign a treaty appointing federal funds to Christian missionaries to build a church and evangelize?
5) Why did Jefferson sign presidential documents "in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ"?
6) Why were there state churches, and why did many states have in their constitutions that only Christians could serve in high level offices?
7) Why didn't Jefferson change the policy of the bible as the primary read in public schools when he was head of the Washington DC school board?
>> ^LukinStone:
>> ^lantern53:
It wasn't a 'Christian' god? What is a 'generic' God?
Who was their God?
And our gov't is supposed to be Godless?
Santorum may believe that sex is supposed to be within marriage. That is the ideal, the one which causes the least grief.
If you don't know what grief sex causes outside of marriage, you never had sex outside marriage.

Maybe you should do some research on "Deism" a popular philosophy many of our founders were exposed to and followed.
The reason I used the word "generic" is because, compared to the Christianity that's popular in America today, it would seem watered down. Basically, a deist doesn't support the supernatural claims of the Bible while still allowing for a god of nature and the universe. You might compare it to Unitarianism today.
Yes, our government was intended to be secular. That doesn't mean that religious people can't participate. It doesn't mean that some of the founders weren't traditional, god-fearing men. It just means, when elected officials attempt to legislate based on purely religious ideas, we should block such attempts, no matter what religion they are based on.
You can propose legislation based on a religious ideal of "good" but you must be able to defend that good in a secular manner.
As I said, Santorum can believe whatever he wants, but when he says he should be able to legislate based on his personal religious beliefs, he is wrong.
Your claim about sex within and without marriage is unfounded. Plenty of grief is caused by people who get married too young or stay in abusive marriages because they respect the sanctity of marriage over their own well being. Plenty of grief is caused by religious dogma teaching adolescents that their sexuality is an evil thing unless it occurs within the confines of marriage.
And, it's fine for you to believe that sex outside of marriage is wrong. But, it is not fine for a law to be passed that takes that assumption as its foundation. That's the purpose of the Establishment clause. You have to have some empathy and consider the spectrum of religions (and atheists too) that will be treated unfairly should such legislation pass.
What would you think if I said "Traditional marriage only ends in grief and divorce?"
Even though the divorce rate is at nearly half, that claim is unfounded. When you say something like "If you don't know the grief sex causes outside of marriage, you never had sex outside of marriage" you show your hand. Using absolutes and straw man personal attacks are indicators of a poorly constructed argument.
Try again.

>> ^shinyblurry:

3 million teens contract an STD every year

Irrelevant. That is a problem of bad safe sex practices, caused mostly by idiotic christian idealists who preach abstinence. Funny how states that preach abstinence have the highest rates of stds.

>> ^shinyblurry:



25.3% of sexually active teens are depressed vs. 7.7% of teens who are not sexually active.
14.3% of sexually active girls attempted suicide while 5.1% of teens who are not sexually active have attempted suicide.
In general, individuals who engage in premarital sexual activity are 50 percent more likely to divorce later in life than those who do not.10 Divorce, in turn, leads to sharp reductions in adult happiness and child well-being.

Well first off, you're equating "premarital sex" with "teen sex". I didn't get married until I was 30. Most people these days are getting married later, so pre-marital sex can be easily between mature adults.
Besides, I don't really believe you.

>> ^shinyblurry:

A study reported in Pediatrics magazine found that sexually active boys aged 12 through 16 are four times more likely to smoke and six times more likely to use alcohol than are those who describe themselves as virgins. Among girls in this same age cohort, those who are sexually active are seven times more likely to smoke and 10 times more likely to use marijuana than are those who are virgins.


Yep, and there's a reason we have age of consent laws. You will get no argument from me that 12 year olds should not be having sex. Doesn't mean they shouldn't learn about it though.
>> ^shinyblurry:



Nearly 31% of girls ages 15 to 19 who have had sexual intercourse at least once become pregnant, and more than 13% of sexually active teenage boys say they have been involved in a pregnancy
Nearly 50% of teenage girls who have sex for the first time before age 15 report having been pregnant, compared with almost 25% of girls age 15 or older,
In addition, 22% of sexually active boys age 15 and under report having been involved in a pregnancy, compared with 9% of teenage boys age 15 or older.
Three in ten teenage girls (31%) become pregnant at least once before they reach the age of 20 Ð more than 750,000 teen pregnancies a year. Eight in ten of these pregnancies are unintended and 81% are to unmarried teens.


Clearly you missed the part where I said:

>> ^ChaosEngine:

I will grant you that pregnancy outside marriage can be more of an issue, but it's really not that difficult to avoid that with a little common sense.

Again, if you and your ilk weren't so hung up on teaching safe sex practices, this issue would be a lot less of a problem.

>> ^shinyblurry:


A majority of both girls and boys who are sexually active wish they had waited. Of those who have had sex, more than one half of teen boys (55%) and the majority of teen girls (70%) said they wish they had waited longer to have sex
That's just scratching the surface.


Again, irrelevant. "premarital sex" != "teen sex". The issue is not at what age you lost your virginity, it's whether or not premarital sex causes "grief".

Aside from the fact that you have provided no citations for this data, I'd wager that part of the reason they feel bad about it is precisely because of the bullshit story that has been pushed onto kids from day one that you will have sex, a chorus of angels will sing and you'll live happily ever after with your partner at the time. Life doesn't always work like that.

edit: fixed quote tags