@A-Winston @lantern53

Here is another fantastic wikipedia article that i highly recommend you read closely.

Note that not a single scientific institution is in any doubt about the points made on that page about climate change. The last group that rejected any of the points (the American Association of Petroleum Geologists no less; one of the most biased-looking on the page and in clear opposition to the consensus) had to, in 2007, accept that the evidence was making them look foolish, and took a "non-committal" stance... whatever that means. A very unscientific conclusion to make - the conclusion should state what the results stated and most importantly be free of opinion. For example you'd get roasted alive for writing "95% probability, so it's quite likely!" in a university science report - italicised bit is clearly an opinion, and is scientifically meaningless.

Read the bit about consensus. Read the bit about peer reviewed research being conducted by lecturers and students at universities around the world.

I'm genuinely trying to help you understand how scientific consensus works, please give this a look. If you're worried about wikipedia you can check the citations, i've given it a look and the sources look reliable, and you can let me know if you've got any doubts about any and i'll take a look for you and discuss it with you in private if you like. Genuinely want to help if i can.

@SDGundamX

Haha, your editing is moot since I received your original post by e-mail!

Anyway, as far as I know not much research has been done on this, maybe because American researchers fear they will not get grants for possibly "debunking" religion. In any case, I do not put much weight on psychological studies. Neurological studies are another matter though, and concerning the Buddhist monks (and other yogis) research has been done that demonstrates neuronal patterns similar to being high on drugs while meditating. Nothing concrete on the placebo effect (we don't even know how it works on a neuronal level), but I would bet money that what I said will be found true at least in some cases.

Now, the rest is conjecture based on accounts of religious experiences by religious people and on my own lifelong feelings and introspection as an atheist that never believed in the christian god even though my grandmother was a pastoral teacher and fervent catholic; and comparing those thoughts and feelings with those of other prominent atheists like Hitchens and Dawkins, while also reading much of the science behind human behavior in general. I am also a philosophy major, for what it's worth (not much if we're talking strictly about scientific evidence, but can be worth lots if we are talking about science or religion in themselves). And really, its not that only religious people get angry when their worldview is challenged, it's that most people that set hard limits on what is real and what isn't will get angry when you present evidence that they cannot refute against your beliefs. That's why most religious scientists don't get angry, but try to find flaws in theories instead: they compartmentalize well, mostly because they are more intelligent that the general population. Still, I think that compartmentalization is a dead end on all levels.

On a closing note, it is not wrong to have opinions on subjects based on conjecture, etc. as long as they are in line with what has been demonstrated so far in science. Physicists don't have any proof about string theory yet many believe that it is "true", meaning that they believe the basic approach is sound and will ultimately give the best answer to today's unsolved problems in physics. The problem with religious thinking is that none of the basic and necessary premises of religion have any empirical evidence, i.e. it's all metaphysics. This is what I meant by non-rational beliefs: they are not irrational, but they are based on indemonstrable premises, fallacies or faith.

Just a little closing note: This is the closest Ive been to the inception of an internet meme. When I submitted this video it had less than 2000 views, it was friggin awesome to watch it explode on youtube over the following days. I don't in any way take any credit for starting the meme, but observing it from so early was very nice.

To be honest.. I can taste the difference between waters.

Distilled has a unique taste to it, to the point where I actually dislike drinking it, and there's a definite difference in the way Canadian/American tap water tastes.

That being said.. this truly is ridiculous spending, but on the plus side most of those bottles look like glass, so at least they're recyclable.

My family for YEARS had one of those fridges that dispenses water, it wasn't practical though, so we switched to bottles. Once we realized that we were spending 50+ a month (for a family of four) to drink these like 700 ML bottles of water, we spent that much on a brita and haven't bought any bottles since.

Just on a closing note though.. Don't denounce buying bottles of water, they DO taste different, Disani is one of the easiest to tell. Buying pure distilled water isn't a crime.. So long as it's not being sold for ludacris amounts.

It would be like 100x cheaper to just install the same apt windows as a sliding door and put a permanent balocny out there. I really can't understand the appeal other then the building looks cleaner when all the windows are closed.

Note: when in balcony mode, bugs, birds and everything.. it's open air. Also, all your A/C just went out the window... When in window mode you can't open it for any fresh air. Also you cannot clean the windows except with exterior rope and basket. Finally, if you left that open during the rain storm.. OMG.. gallons of water flooding the place.

Alright, had the movies told us to be alpha males/females (beings, if you will) then that would still account for about zero to one percent of gender role and body perception views if you ask me. There are lots of ways to raise ones child/children without them growing up to be either a Gaston, a Milton (see Office Space), or a suicidal emo goth person. Key here is communication, talking to the kids and not overanalyzing.
The kind of stories Disney portray in their movies are classical tales of heroes, and as we all know the story would be painfully boring for children to watch if the hero was Milton Waddams (Office Space) going to work in the office basement, battling hordes of Mongol marauders or even a hydra, or whatever else Disney has to throw at him. Actually, as a parent I'd be more concerned that my children would get a distorted view of modern day Englishmen from watching Pokahontas than I'd be of them becoming brawling alphamales from watching The Lion King.
Point is that YES, Disney films would be bad for kids if that's the ONLY interaction with the world they got. However, that's not a realistic scenario.

As for acceptance, I think that was the whole point of the Beauty and the Beast. Showing kids that a beautiful girl can fall in love with a monster instead of the buff alpha man-hulk goes a long way in showing acceptance, especially taking into consideration the backstory to the Beast becoming what he was.

My main gripe with this video is how it spins the reality of the movies, blatantly ignoring the obvious messages of them aswell as taking scenes out of context and adding their own to the scenes they've taken out. I can garantuee you that no kid in the world would see any Disney movie (neither consciously nor subconsciously) in the way shown in this video.
This is a fear monger's wet dream, much like saying that reading Donald Duck would promote indecency because he's not wearing any pants, or how showing kids the Smurfs will indoctrinate them into becoming communists.
In the end, I think that grownups see alot of things in cartoons that kids don't. And even if you see something in a comic that you don't agree with, shielding ones children by not letting them watch it won't protect them. All it will most likely do is truly give them a distorted world view in believing these issues does not exist. Key here, as I'd like to point out, is talking to ones kids about it.

As a closing note I'd also like to say that one of my very favourite films to date is the animated (in those days called cartoon) movie "Wizards". A highly destructive film for children to watch by today's standards. In all fairness it's not really a films for younglings, which needs to be said in hopes for me to not get misinterpreted.