Religion vs. Science: Part 2

This is a continuation of an argument spawned by a post on facebook that moved to messages. The original debate can be seen in the previous post. Here is what went on between me (T) and R:

R
No I don't agree with this guy mostly, but he does do good research on history and use it. check out pg 4 on the "look inside" of this. He says about capitalism what I've always thought and see how it's being both abused and persecuted.

No, I'm not calling you an idiot, that is his term.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1416595023/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0743596870&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0868JPG4V203S714T698#reader_1416595023

T
I really have no qualms with discussing things with people as long as everything can be kept civil (which it has been). I will read this because in order to know your convictions, it's always better to know what else is out there. Thanks.

OK - didn't realize it was Glenn Beck but still went ahead with it.

1) How is capitalism not greed? I'll give you that politicians can be greedy, but it's the pot calling the kettle black. Each one wants a bigger piece of the pie, they just go about it differently. In both scenarios you have to play the game.

2) I'd probably say the downfall actually happened with all the deregulation that helped the economy into a downward spiral. I've recently learned that this happened under the Clinton administration.

3) So without artificially low interest rates would people be able to afford housing? Or would those who were higher on the ladder just be able to buy everything and keep everyone else renting for the rest of their lives? I think that's how that would play out.

And how is regulation bad? If there wasn't any this world would be raped of all resources and 99% of the population would be subjugated by a monopoly. I don't see how or why corporations would change their money making schemes to make people happy? You can call things "organic" but if there was no regulation, it wouldn't really have to be. Then these people can just be selling a lie to get into the trendy market niche.

I support capitalism, but slow, regulated development ensures that everything -- the economy and resources -- are stable and sustainable. One company may have a level head, but that does nothing to keep another from overfishing, overlogging, or going over the top on anything just to get another dollar or squeeze into the niche that the other company has been practicing for a much longer period of time. The government is an established entity that may not be perfect but has the wisdom and foundation to try to keep things in check.

Money is awesome, don't get me wrong, but thinking only about the present and where the dollars can come from now unfettered by bureaucratic bullshit isn't going to help the future. It's like a parent that knows better because it's been around for a few hundred years and has learned from past governments' mistakes even though it may not be perfect itself.

R
The simple problem we have today is government intervention and over taxing. These are a fact. This is why the "tea party" emerged that you don't like. Some regulation is needed, especially in monopolistic situations, but overall, government regulations have been our problem. That is what that link was saying too. A lot of the problems today can be linked back to "you must give loans to poor people that cannot afford housing even if they don't have the income to pay for it". That began right here in Atlanta in the 90s. I remember it well. I couldn't believe the NAACP as suing banks because they were denying more loans to blacks than whites; when simply they were denying on the financiald. Then Fannie Mae came in and said they'd guarantee those high risk loans,and then you and I started bailing the banks out and the ball started its unstoppable roll. Today, in my business, if the jerks would just cut taxes, our business would boom back to pre 2008 levels. But no, Obama thinks he is smarter than Reagan. Same situation, but he goes the socialist direction.

On people not affording... everyone can afford shelter. It's just that people think they have to live in a home that is portrayed on TV. When you are poor, you suffer. It is suffering that makes a person get up out of the hole and get moving. There are countless stories of such. When the government just gives and entitles people, they get lazy and fat and dumb. That is what we see today.

Oh, glad to see you are not a card carrying socialist like was inferred in some of your posts.

R
He may be kookie some times, but he got this right.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/08/glenn_beck_sarah_palin_rally_o.html

T
I agree that some and maybe many get fat, lazy, and dumb, but there are those that only use government handouts as a means to get back on their feet. Like I think I said before. There are always people who are going to work the system no matter what rung of the hierarchy they're on. So are you willing to deny those that need it over those who milk it? Seems like even the welfare system needs some more regulation, or maybe an overhaul. However, as for their being dumb, many people who are in impoverished towns don't have access to good education. If this were the case than maybe the numbers of black vs. white people looking for home loans may have been different. I'm telling you, education is key and is govt money well spent.

As for Beck, I can get behind educated and informed conservatives, especially fiscal ones, but all he's doing here is trying to merge Christian beliefs and morals with his ideas on how the country should be run. He's pandering to emotions rather than intellect -- that's going to be the case any time Palin is involved. This is my point exactly: "One woman from the Beck rally shouted to the Sharpton marchers: 'Go to church. Restore America with peace.'." America can be peaceful without these Christian ideals that are polarizing the people. I'm not saying it's bad, I'm just saying that people like Beck are using Christianity as a means to create strife between "the others", namely those of Muslim faith. If people stood behind what it meant to be AMERICAN rather than what it meant to be an American CHRISTIAN, a lot of this animosity might be quelled.

So you read your propaganda, I read mine: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/28/opinion/28herbert.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&ref=general&src=me&adxnnlx=1283018529-Wu1JH8B%2FgJ2Idp5+d%2F3LLg

And you can just briefly skim that one, but I'd really like to see what you have to say about this one. It happened just the other day at Alaska's state fair: http://frontiersman.com/articles/2010/08/27/local_news/doc4c78500c40102107414412.txt

Many countries that are labeled as socialist actually have a capitalist foundation. (The best example is Scandinavia and while it's an expensive place to live, and taxes are heavy, their quality of life far exceeds ours. And the average person also makes more.)

R
glanced at first one; total bullshit man. did you not read what I gave you on the rally? MLK's person attorney said it was a good thing; wouldn't he know MLK's intentions and likes?

"Clarence B. Jones, who served as King's personal attorney and his speechwriter, said he believes King would not be offended by Beck's rally but "pleased and honored" that a diverse group of people would come together, almost five decade later, to discuss the future of America.

Jones, now a visiting professor at Stanford University, said the Beck rally seemed to be tasteful and did not appear to distort King's message, which included a recommitment to religious values.

"I think it is the testimony to the power and greatness of the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. in enabling America to make a peaceful transition from apartheid and racial segregation to a multiracial society where Glenn Beck or anyone would hold a rally at the Lincoln Memorial," Jones said in a telephone interview."

And Beck NEVER suggests any violence. hell he cries more than any man I've seen, he don't like violence. Maybe you should actually listen to him some time?

R
You seem to have a lot of concern about Christians. So do you consider yourself an atheist?

T
Beck is appealing to the social conservatives. Clarence is likely a Baptist as was Dr. King. These ideals generally go hand-in-hand. So I can see why he would rally behind him. And he seems pretty well connected now:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Benjamin_Jones#Legal_and_financial_career
"In 1967, at age 36, Jones joined the investment banking and brokerage firm of Carter, Berlind & Weill where he worked alongside future Citigroup Chairman and CEO, Sanford I. Weill and Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman, Arthur Levitt. Jones was the first African-American to be named an allied member of the New York Stock Exchange."

I think what Beck does is incite anger. He preaches non-violence but gets people hyped. So in that sense you can't say he is violent. You're right.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/alveda-king-speaks-glenn-becks-dc-rally/story?id=11504453&page=2
"My daddy, Rev. A.D. King, my granddaddy, Martin Luther King, Senior -- we are a family of faith, hope and love. And that's why I'm here today," King said. "Glenn says there is one human race, I agree with him. We are not here to divide. I'm about unity. That's why I'm here, and I want to honor my uncle today."

If this is actually the case, then maybe I can support this, but Beck's history is that of a divider. He calls the president a racist! And usually "Signs at some tea party events have included pictures of Obama embellished with a Hitler-style mustache, racial epithets and threats to Democratic officials." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100826/ap_on_en_tv/us_dc_rally_glenn_beck

He is never seen to condone these types of signs, but he also does nothing to stop them, which is just as bad. Again, clever man. Beck tiptoes around all these issues such as racism, religious hatred/intolerance, and illegal immigration. He drops the seed and people run with it.
http://mediamatters.org/research/201007270045

This is exactly what is happening on the other "front". Where the extremists are getting filled with hate and taking it upon themselves to do something about it. Really, when was the last time you heard about someone doing something crazy in the name of socialism? People should have had something against the Patriot Act. People protest wars, but where is the violence? Please, prove me wrong.

I bring up Christianity so much because this is who he panders to. Beck is not evoking America, he's evoking Christians. He's telling people to "turn back to God".
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/08/28/glenn.beck.rally/index.html?hpt=2

And what does it matter if I'm a Christian? Are you next going to ask if I'm gay so certain social conservatives can then place me in another "other" category? If you must know, I was raised Baptist but grew out of it and I do not appreciate to be labeled as something with a religious connotation or tie, but people must have a label for you. So I do not consider myself an atheist, but if you must label me, then atheist is likely going to fit that.

But this is my whole point. America is about its melting pot qualities, its freedom for everyone, but Beck is trying to create a Christian army. I will give him that it was clever for him to keep political signs out of the rally to make it more of a "reverent" gathering. The man can draw a crowd. But his message on the outside seems inviting, yet if you listen to him closely, he spews hatred.

T
Oh, and this:
"Beck's emerging role as a national leader for Christian conservatives is surprising not only because he has until recently stressed a libertarian ideology that is sometimes at odds with so-called family values conservatism, but also because Beck is a Mormon."
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/28/at-rally-beck-positions-himself-as-new-leader-for-christian-conservatives/?hpt=C1

T
And this comment from the same link basically sums it up.

"FOX news offered more money...so he switched from left to right...and that's exactly what this is all about...MONEY. He wants to be a Rush Limbaugh and get 400,000,000 a year. Watch, he'll announce a new book very soon. The Christain conservatives are a HUGE emotional market. Emotional markets are the best...ask any marketing major...it's all about the money."

Alright I think I'm done for now.

R
Using wiki "write what you want" to support what you think" pedia, lessens points dramatically. You do understand that site is not an authority on anything right, because it is written by anyone? That is why I posted that spoof site. some times they do get history facts right, but even then important facts are left out. In any political topic, it is never a balanced page, always slanting to the liberal progressive agenda.

R
On Beck, yes you can find some stupid things he said in past years, but he's cleaned up. This is why all those "no violence" quotes are on that page you linked. He's changed in that. This is why King et al support him now. People do change. That site was a great list of quotes of him warning and explaining why there cannot be violence which is very convincing argument against your point and the point on the page. It's too bad they didn't put dates to prove that. I listen to him some time driving, as I drive all over the SE states for long times. I do hear him and know him; and yes, some times he gets goofy; he's human, we all do.

That's crazy that you'd link "Beck isn't a christian" link, seeing that you seem to fear Christians and especially given the debate on religious freedom. so what? is what i say. Who cares what religion he his or is not. He believes in getting back to family values; raising children will clarify your position on this some day. Believe me.

By the way, Obama IS a racists. Look up the definition. He believe indeed many of the things Beck charges him with. I see it. I've never been so disillusioned by a man. While I didn't vote for him, I thought maybe he would be the one to transcend the black and white issues. But no, he calls every white person that disagrees with him a racist. He is so immature it embarrasses me to have him as a President. I thought he would be a leader to bring the races together for once. Like now that a black man is President, then the black folks will quit having such a chip on their shoulder. no, not it is worse, the attitude now is "we're better than you and taking back America". Oh man. That is so divisive. So far away from what MLK wanted for his fellow man. All of them.

Beck does not tip toe around anything man. You really got to quit reading Media matters. Do you know who owns them? Look into the facts. That is like a conservative using newsmax.com for a source.

"when was the last time you heard about someone doing something crazy in the name of socialism?" Seriously? Most wars have been fought to stop Socialism from inhuman behavior; but more closely at home, countless "protests" have turned violent by the progressive left. Here is just one you can find easily. I know you hate fox, but here is indeed a look at a socialist based protest and a Tea party protest. By the way NO ONE has any proof of the allegations at the tea party protest. Still today from what I've heard. however, I'll admit there are some racists in the tea party, just like you find them everywhere on both sides.

Oh, and on Beck and CNN and FOX. I watched him briefly on CNN. I couldn't believe they would let him stay there. He left because CNN didn't want him. They ran off Lou Dobbs too remember. They just don't fit their progressive liberal agenda. "But a CNN executive, who asked not to be identified because the negotiation was private, said that a sticking point in the talks with Mr. Beck to renew his contract was a plan by Headline News to drop the repeat of Mr. Beck’s show at 9 p.m."
Sure the guy wants to make money. Don't we all? Is there something wrong with that? Oh, you are heading back to your socialist leanings now. If someone is making money, he must be lying, right?

R
Oh, you didn't answer.

You seem to have a lot of concern about Christians. So do you consider yourself an atheist?

T
I know that wikipedia can be edited by anyone, but someone's work/partner history is likely not going to be made a fallacy. There are people that monitor and close entries due to mistreatment. From what I've heard the monitors are actually on top of it. There was a go for a time on "chicken". http://www.everytopicintheuniverseexceptchickens.com/

I suppose you support conservapedia. http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page
Oh, there's Glenn on the front page!

I suppose people do change. Beck was once a hardcore liberal asking about where his universal health care might be. It looks like he can flip flop within the matter of 16 months. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-13-2009/glenn-beck-s-operation

It's not that I care. It's that those who follow him who are Christian should care. You're following someone who's just spewing what you want to hear and believe yet he very likely doesn't believe it himself. I went to a Christian school for my first year of college and I went to a lecture that taught about how Mormonism is actually a "cult" and not a religion and the difference between the two. If mainstay Christians (that was a non-denominational school) don't buy into Mormonism, then how is it that a Mormon is leading your movement?

Speaking of definitions (going of racist), I've been wondering if you could define socialism for me, with a legitimate definition. Then maybe you could express how this is mutually exclusive with democratic ideals.

Back to racist. What? Obama is calling people racists? Have you seen the signs? http://www.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&biw=1229&bih=547&tbs=isch%3A1&sa=1&q=obama+monkey+sign&aq=f&aqi&aql&oq&gs_rfai

Granted, they do it to Bush too, but I don't think it quite has the same connotation. You tell me. http://blog.seattlepi.com/miltpriggee/library/PC10725cPpi.jpg

Maybe it's a southern thing, and I'll soon find out (I will be living in NC in 3 weeks) but I haven't seen this "chip on the shoulder" nor "better than thou" mentality. Looking up "racism" (I hope dictionary.com suits you:
"a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others."

I haven't really seen Obama tout his preference for his own race over any other, but maybe you can give a few examples since you listen to Beck, and likely Limbaugh, more than I do.

Speaking of owning, do you know who's funding your Tea Party movement? Ever heard of the Koch Brothers? http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html?_r=3&hp

"When David Koch ran to the right of Reagan as vice president on the 1980 Libertarian ticket (it polled 1 percent), his campaign called for the abolition not just of Social Security, federal regulatory agencies and welfare but also of the F.B.I., the C.I.A., and public schools — in other words, any government enterprise that would either inhibit his business profits or increase his taxes. He hasn’t changed. As Mayer details, Koch-supported lobbyists, foundations and political operatives are at the center of climate-science denial — a cause that forestalls threats to Koch Industries’ vast fossil fuel business. While Koch foundations donate to cancer hospitals like Memorial Sloan-Kettering in New York, Koch Industries has been lobbying to stop the Environmental Protection Agency from classifying another product important to its bottom line, formaldehyde, as a “known carcinogen” in humans (which it is)."

So basically big business, but I suppose you support that based on your pure capitalist ideals.

About socialism. I meant to limit it to domestic issues. I know that totalitarianism combined with socialism can turn ugly, but we're still in a capitalist society with many freedoms not afforded to the countries that we have warred against. But I see you found the one about immigration. I suppose that's ephemerally tied to socialism, as the left usually wants to increase border control, which seems like more of a big government job, but whatever. I'll give you that one. But to quote the dude on the left (heh, of the screen), "They were both mostly peaceful, parts were ugly..." And reading above, it seems that you'd be willing to say that both sides have bad apples.

Glenn Beck not being allowed to stay? Or were the dollar signs bigger elsewhere? Potato, potAto. Yes, it's OK to want money. I want money. But to switch your convictions at the drop of a dollar, well, there's something to be said about that. I thought this was the whole reason people hated Kerry, but it's OK when Beck does it? There's got to be lying in there somewhere if you say one thing one year and something else the next.

And socialism isn't about not wanting money, its about wanting to be able to establish good living conditions for you and your fellow citizens. Granted some people can do it for themselves, but does everyone have the time and money to build their own roads, school their own children, or be their own doctor? Those leaning to the right are generally moved by their emotions or never want to see any dollars leave their hands because they can't see the direct benefit that it gives themselves. But there are people out there who are making billions -- more than they know what to do with, and they're the ones getting the tax breaks. 10% from them could go a lot farther than 10% from someone working at or around minimum wage. And if capitalism were perfect, these people might give back some, and some do, but others look for loopholes not only to not pay taxes, by, say, moving parts of the company overseas, or try to buy their way out of paying by sponsoring movements that cater to those who are easily affected by their emotions.

I answered as well as I could. You can label me an atheist, but I personally don't want to be associated with a religious belief, even if the belief is denying religion. But yes, I am "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings." But I may also be labeled as a humanist, "a person having a strong interest in or concern for human welfare, values, and dignity."

And again, my concern isn't with Christians, it's with Glenn Beck, the man who is manipulating the Christian-right populace.

R
not a lot of time at this moment; but... you protest too much about Beck. I only used the points he makes as points that I believe, and he says them better some times. I admitted he gets kookie some time, but that doesn't mean I don't identify with some of the things he is saying. Also on Rush, liberal progressives, which is where you sound like you are, want to think the people parrot what Rush and Beck say, but I think you realize, they only say what people are thinking....that is how they make their money, as you say. It's the reverse of what many say. No, they say a lot I do not believe as well. They are humans with faults and sins. That doesn't take away from what is right. I don't idolize a man, other than Christ.

R
"...socialism ..., its about wanting to be able to establish good living conditions for you and your fellow citizens. " Therein is the problem with your thinking and all the thinking of progressives (by the way.. Government is not established to "take care of" their fellow humans. This is the intrinsic problem with people that do not believe in God and a higher power that you will answer to when you die. We are taught to take care of each other. When the people turn this responsibility over to "government", they essentially wash their hands of their neighbor, as "the government will do that" they say. Oh, but they support a government that takes from one person's welfare and gives it to another that is too lazy to get off his ass. Sure there is necessary regulations on capitalism to protect the rights of people, but that doesn't mean government is always the answer. usually government is the problem Have you ever heard of a man call Ronald Reagan? read some of his words. he was truly a statesman and one that inspired the best in people. Too bad we don't have someone like that in the Whitehouse today.

you are concerned about Tea party because of it's backing? Seriously, have you ever looked into Obama's money trail? If you knew,then you wouldn't say this.

Thanks for the conservativepedia thing. I'd never heard of it! See, while you search and search the internet for facts that support what you think, I do not. I may search something that supports what I think, to give you better words than i have time to type, but my facts come from direct interface with a lot of people in my daily routine, from executives in major corporations, to union people working the lines. My opinion and facts come from over 30 years of working Life traveling around most of this country. Maybe you should spend less time on the computer and more time out taking care of your fellow man personally? Now, i don't know that you don't obviously, but still, my point is that opinion and facts should come from more places than the internet.

NC? I travel that state too. maybe we can get a beer some time and pray together.

T
"Too lazy to get off his ass". Some people start out at a lower level than we were fortunate to. It's not always an issue of being lazy, but being able to have a chance or a stable footing to do something with yourself. Yes, people take advantage, but I think we're in agreement that there are two kinds of people in this world.

"Government is not established to "take care of" their fellow humans." From what I remember, government was established "by the people, for the people." And what happened to this "it takes a village" mentality?

"This is the intrinsic problem with people that do not believe in God and a higher power that you will answer to when you die."

Are you saying that I lack morality or that I am a sinner if I don't believe in what Glenn Beck or the right is telling me?

"We are taught to take care of each other. When the people turn this responsibility over to "government", they essentially wash their hands of their neighbor, as "the government will do that" they say."

OK, this is a ridiculous argument. I give money to someone who redistributes it to those "in need" (hopefully) and that's somehow not helping my neighbor? I guess if you live in a mansion, you're right, your neighbor doesn't need it. I don't see how this is any different than giving to a church who, as an entity, decides where best to put their NON-TAXED funds.

Show me Obama's money trail. I know he was backed by BP. Now, if this whole fiasco in the Gulf was perpetrated by BP (I can't think of a reason why it would, since this could only hurt their chances of further deep-sea drilling) then I might be very concerned.

I have 30 years of life experience. I have traveled to Europe, Africa, and Latin America. I have seen poverty beyond the scale of how it's labeled in America. I am an Eagle Scout. I know what community service is about. I have been involved in programs that get kids involved and excited about the field I work in. I get people interested in their past and their heritage. I engage with people on a daily basis. I don't see how my "facts" or propaganda are any different than yours other than their source. Many things that I have said come from outside sources. Just because I Google the crap out of things shouldn't make you defensive. It just means I want to learn. And I have picked up a few things from this discussion, both from interaction with you and from my need to try to get a rebuttal on things you've said.

Yeah. Greenville, NC. I'd be down for a beer and you can pray all you want, but I just ask to not pray for my soul, it's not worth the time.

T
Oh, and you didn't give me your definition of socialism, you just tore apart mine. That and the follow up question: How is socialism mutually exclusive from democratic ideals?

T
If I take any more of your time, please let it be the the first five minutes of this clip. http://vodpod.com/watch/4295785-the-daily-show-debates-is-fox-news-evil-or-stupid

Five minutes. That's all I ask.

R
GGee... this is a comedy show! It is not a real news source. Worse than Wiki... Anyone can buy stock in a capitalist system. Your point is moot.

T
It's a comedy NEWS program. It's not like he's lying to you. They may make fun of people/topics/issues, but you can tell where the facts lie. Stewart's same point is found in the CREDIBLE article I linked to before it.

It's not moot. Say I buy life insurance and "somehow" that person dies mysteriously. I would think somebody, likely the insurance company, would like to get to the bottom of it. You don't care that the news you watch is partially owned by the people you despise? May I remind you something I read earlier. "follow the money. we are at war with radical people that want to kill Americans in mass. is this being funded by those people?constitution demands protection"

So it matters if the "mosque" is being funded by "dangerous" Muslims, but not FoxNews? Got it.

And so why can we buy stock in capitalism but not in a religious institution? And. I'm still waiting on a definition of socialism. You can drop the second half to make it a bit easier.

But I'm glad you at least watched it.

T
Another link, written by a reverend. I tried to pick out a few things so you don't have to read it all:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-james-martin-sj/glenn-beck-vs-christ-the-_b_698359.html

"Glenn Beck took aim at one of his favorite targets, Barack Obama, but in a novel way. Beck regrets saying a few months ago that President Obama was a 'racist.' What he should have said, he now realizes, was that he didn't agree with Obama's 'theology.' And what is Obama's theology, according to Beck? Liberation theology."

Beck:
"I think that it is much more of a theological question that he is a guy who understands the world through liberation theology, which is oppressor and victim....That is a direct opposite of what the gospel is talking about...It's Marxism disguised as religion"

Reverend:
"As he may or may not have known, the tenets of 'social justice' encourage one not only to help the poor, but also address the conditions that keep them poor. He called that 'communist.'
That approach didn't work out that well for Beck since so many Christian denominations these days, particularly the Catholic Church, espouse social justice explicitly. So he backed off. But liberation theology? Really?"

"'It's hardly 'the opposite of the Gospel,' as Beck said. The opposite of the Gospel would be to acquire wealth and fail to work on behalf of the poor."

"There are also plenty of overheated websites that facilely link it to Marxism. My response to that last critique is to read the Gospels and count how many times Jesus tells us that we should help the poor and even be poor. "

R
Having fun with family now.....so not much time. Justin and I watched that together an laughed. no, this is NOT a news station. That photo was taken back in January I believe. I recall that Murdoch was trying to get fox news into the Arab world, so they'd have some real truth. so, yes, Stewart does lie in a sense, insinuating this was recent or something. did they give him stock for the deal? I don't know. i haven't looked into it. But all this certainly does not have anything to do with ground zero. If he did have something to do with it, then I think Murdoch did a real deal to get his network there to our enemies. How does this conflict with anything? You seem to think I hold fox news up as some holy grail. They are just a business. All the socialist / atheist types seem to want to find something wrong with the deliverer of news or a message that their message they believe is wrong. I don't care about them. I care about what I believe is right. Just because someone else is screwed, doesn't mean that my opinion isn't based on real facts and life.

T
FoxNews has so many holes in it though. Which makes you wonder what they're not telling you. But does it matter when the picture was taken? I don't think so.

OK, I'm legitimately just trying to understand this:
"If he did have something to do with it, then I think Murdoch did a real deal to get his network there to our enemies. How does this conflict with anything?"

You're saying it's OK to "sell your soul" to the proverbial devil in the capitalist game? Or am I misunderstanding?

And maybe this the difference between us: I feel a unity in all of mankind; you worry about you and yours (Christians/Americans).

R
When we Americans can be visible in Arab world, its a good thing. This can only help unity to use your word.

T
I went to Egypt in 2002, 5 months after 9/11. Granted I stayed in mostly touristed areas (Cairo, Luxor, Alexandria), but me and my girlfriend did just fine.

It's all about education, and FoxNews/Beck is not the answer. It just preys on fear and emotion, some justified, most not.

R
Why is it that progressive socialist fear fox so much when there are more important issues? Is it perhaps because they provide both sides of a story? That seems to scare them.

T
BECAUSE IT IS MAKING PEOPLE STUPID!
They look up to this guy: http://www.themudflats.net/2010/08/27/joe-miller-calls-senator-lisa-murkowski-a-whore/

T
It's about the fear they incite in "Real Americans" that we fear. People like McVey who would have likely been a Fox supporter. They make people scared to be alive. Their goal isn't to inform, it's to create fear. And people like you buy into it because of their inability to look outside of themselves and the safety bubble in which they have placed themselves.

They have been known to make up lies. That is not news reporting. That's worse than Jon Stewart.

R
How do you hold a global news company responsible for some stupid comment someone makes because he's tired of people going to Washington and making deals that undercut their values? Have you never seen Mr Smith Goes to Washington? This is not new stuff man. It's been going on forever; it has nothing to do with a news company.

T
Well... if the individual is doing whatever they're doing based on a lie perpetrated by the news corporation, I think that would be a good reason. But as for Miller, he has Tea Party backing. So the question is whether the Tea Party is more than just an outcome of something that FoxNews or its constituents/supporters/funders has created. Because in this case, he just seems like a product, which, I guess most/all politicians are. This time around it just seems obvious that the money is getting funneled through some giant corporation with terrorist ties -- which I guess only matters if the money furthers Muslim ideology and not if it goes to "informing" the public.

But I'll see if I can find that movie. Wag the Dog is a good one too.

R
Oh my god! "known to make up lies"? And you don't remember Dan Rather getting fired because he got caught making up false documents to hurt Bush? You really don't think people are smart enough to see through stuff and make up their own minds? Probably because you are a socialist and think that someone always has to do for others and that those that are not socialist don't have a mind. Therein is the problem with socialist thinking.

And for the comparison to McVay linked to Fox news, that is a wild ass stretch man. That would be like linking the murderous Husan in Fort Hood to the koran. Oh.... you couldn't agree with that could you? Islam is a peaceful religion, coming back full circle where we started.


R
"Oh, and you didn't give me your definition of socialism, you just tore apart mine. That and the follow up question: How is socialism mutually exclusive from democratic ideals?"

Here's a good definition of socialism. So much of this is pertinent today. I hope you see that; if you don't, then it could answer why we have such different views.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVh75ylAUXY&feature=player_embedded#!

R
Enjoyed the discussion. Good night.

T
If you're going to keep calling me a socialist, maybe you should define it like I asked you to multiple times.

I don't remember Dan Rather getting fired. But maybe other corporations should have the same convictions...

And no. I believe that capitalists want their guns and are fearful (as perpetrated by Beck and his "civil liberties" -- please define those for me) that socialism will take that away, even though those two ideologies are in no way overtly connected.

So McVay vs. Husan: Should McVay have been allowed to carry a gun? Should Husan? One believed in a religion which is our own and we're familiar with it, the other is foreign and scary because we don't know shit about it. Based on this, one should have a gun and one shouldn't, because clearly only one of these men are "Real Americans". True of false?

As for your question. If Fox is to be blamed, and Fox is associated with Tea Partiers, and Tea Partiers (we're playing the Glenn Beck game here) are by majority Christian fundamentalists, then in theory these types of Christians are getting their morality check from a corporate news source. So in this case FoxNews = Christian. So where ever and however Husan got his ideology/mindset/brainwashing then yeah, his religion also did him in. I'm guessing it may have also been fundamentalist. I'd also throw the guy who flew into the IRS building and the guy who stabbed a Muslim in a NY cab into the ring as well. There are always unstable people. I think we both agree on that.

T
America: "It's all races, creeds, and religions..."
All you say?
"... and to worship God in your own way"
Oh, only God. I see...

So basically "Ism" could be big government or a giant corporation. Either way to survive you have to buy into one. And either way the average person is going to be under someone's thumb. Would you rather it be an entity with regulation and the ability to cast votes from the public, or some business that's only after what options it can offer the stock holders who is not the general populace? To me, one seems like the conservative game. You may not win the lotto, but you get a decent lifestyle out of the deal. The other is a crapshoot. You may make it big, but there's no guarantee, and in fact the chips are stacked against you. That's how I see it, at least.

I like this ~4:30 "Some people thought Joe was lazy, some people thought he was nuts..." (Average impoverished Joe, lazy? That's how all Average Joes are! Where have I heard that?) And here we are. This I think is ultimately it, the difference between those who dislike big government, and those who embrace the potential it offers: Joe makes himself into a millionaire. Sure, Joe was average. However, how many other average Joe's on his block actually strike it rich? Maybe he had a partner in crime. Fine, one other. But really. How many of those people in his neighborhood are ever going to realize the "American Dream". Probably not that many. So for Joe, who makes good money, he hates taxes because more of his money is likely to leave his pocket to help all the other "lazy and crazy" Joes on his block. He put in the effort, he should keep all his money. But where would Joe be if money didn't once and still filter back to the rest of his community? I suppose he's made it big and can buy that mansion, but all those other Joes he left behind... Does he care about how he and Other Joe used to play in the federally/state/community-funded park all those years ago? No, he doesn't. His friend Other Joe is still in the same neighborhood and his kid, little Joey, now has to play on a broken swing. Meanwhile Joe has his own park on top of his penthouse suite for his little Joey who has thousands of toys that have only been touched once and thousands more that could be purchased. (Could I be the next Glenn Beck?!)

Oh, and also notice how Joe was fortunate enough to have relatives who could support his cause. Joe may be average, but he's also from an "upper average" family. And somehow this equals capitalism??! Because they had capital to begin with. So other Average Joes are basically socialists because they don't have well-off relatives.

And it's funny that they talk about the car industry in America since that recently just FAILED (the chance taken by capitalist ventures) and needed government support.

"The state is the union" - personally (from experience) I find union reps to be lazy and uninterested in the workers they represent, so I'm generally against them but realize the impact they had around the time of the formation of child labor laws, etc.

"The state is the supreme court" - supreme court decided that companies have the same rights as individuals to fund campaigns. May the highest bidder win. (Capitalist ideal)

"No more private property" - now corporations are buying up land and making people live in poor living conditions where crowded townhomes are the only option. Buying is not an option unless you can sell your soul to a bank. (Capitalist ideal)

"Farmers don't vote anymore" - OK, so that's a funny one, but farmers are getting screwed over by large corporations such as Monsanto that are creating GMOs and are suing farmers that happen to accidentally get their seed in their harvest because of natural wind patterns, etc. Monsanto also has huge sway with the Supreme Court. "What will I do for seed next year?" Exactly.... The little man can't win on their own. (Capitalist ideal)

State concentration camp: As you know, the govt did this to the Japanese during WWII. Is this something that you would be interested in for the current Muslim population? Because, if so, it's apparently socialist.

"When anybody ... tries to pit one of us against the other through class warfare, race hatred, or religious intolerance, you know that person seeks to rob us of our freedom and destroy our very lives."

And then they use violence to solve the problem...

Great. So how again is Beck not pitting some against others? "Poor people are lazy", "Obama is a racist", "Muslims are all fanatical and trying to invoke Sharia law". He preaches about "civil liberties", but really he's doing just what John Q. Public is warning about -- creating a cohesive bunch that will unite in opposition to something they fear.

So fine. Unite. Use fear. Whatever. But why does it have to end with violence? Granted, diplomacy would make for a shitty cartoon, but maybe the "ism" could find its niche in the capitalist society. It could create national parks and monuments, it could help Joe out when he's sick and doesn't have a rich uncle to turn to, it could help little Joey get to college.

There's a happy medium for everything. And I know polarity is the biggest spark for fear; it's why politics exist. But would you, as Average Joe, would you rather have respectable living conditions, or feel secure because you know no one can pry that rifle from your hands, even when you can no longer afford to do much else outside of sleep, work, and eat? Ok, that's extreme, and maybe my view is always coming from the bottom up and not starting at a level playing field, but here: for me government may take, but it gives back. Corporations take and keep everything, helping out a select few. I've yet to see trickle-down do its magic. It just seems like corporations get larger and more powerful leaving Average Joe behind.

That was long. When should we end this?

I don't understand how it is that you see everything so clearly. I think you are looking through a mirror at everything you see. you seem to have so much hate in your tone as well and intolerance for the possibility that there may be another side to the way people think and live. This other side is what our country was founded on. without opposing views, that are indeed valid to a lot if not a majority of people, then this country would be CHAOS, not peaceful, as we'd all be alike and zombies that don't care and having government take care of everything.....like Sweden perhaps. My daughter lived there and said they are all laze and waiting for government to do everything for them.

Obama is the one pitting race against race (listen to his immigration talk and comments about Arizona), and he's pitting "classes" against each other (listen to any of his speeches about share the wealth). That is what socialism does man. It pits the "unfortunate" against the successful.

I don't get what your definition of successful is either. I see millions of successful people every day in my life. More successful people in this country than those that are not. Even the poor are successful in their own definitions if you ask them. Where did you get defined as a person that is responsible for how much money some others make? We are our brothers keeper does not say find ways to give them everything. It was meant to find ways to help them see the potential within themselves. Their God given talents; oh, but you don't believe in God, so you probably don't even believe they all have a talent that is of value to other people in which they can make a living as well.

R
I'm quite puzzled how a person gets such a sour view of this country. I guess you could identify with Michelle Obama when she said she's "finally proud" of this country....now that it is moving to socialism so rapidly.

You say so much here that is born of socialism teachings, like the car industry for one. Gee, did you know for instance that the union leaders via "the state directions" (like the video from 1948) are now telling their union workers that they must cut their pay in half or they will close some GM plants? This is what happens when socialism takes over. This is real today man! And don't go searching for YOUR truth to find someone that agrees with your conditioned thinking. Go search for the actual truth.

So many of your examples above are slanted by your conditioned thinking that I don't even know where to begin. I could recommend some books to read that are better rebuttals to what you say than I can type, but I know you'd not read them, as you'd think they are propaganda. The problem is one cannot know the truth if he doesn't read both sides of a story. That is why there are always two sides in a court case. There are ALWAYS two ways to look at the same thing. That of course is why we have elections as well.

Good luck on your socialist agenda. NC is going to be a shock to you, but there are many "souls" to convert away from their faith and convictions of course by promising them free this and free that and pitting them against others that have more so they can take more from them, etc, which is by the way the definition of socialism. We'll defeat you, because we have true human freedom and human rights on our side born by our faith; most importantly we have the faith that every human being can be an important contributor to his fellow man and he doesn't have to relinquish that responsibility to an entity of any kind, especially government. As a very great leader and inspirational statesman said once, "We believe faith and freedom must be our guiding stars, for they show us truth, they make us brave, give us hope, and leave us wiser than we were." - President Ronald Reagan.

R
Saw this just now and thought of you. It's not fox! And they are not white racists talking. What do you think?
http://www.cnn.com/video/?%2Fvideo%2Fpolitics%2F2010%2F08%2F04%2Fbts.tea.party.racism.cnn

R
go to the 10 min mark if you don't listen to anything else. This is what I've always thought. We will never stop racism, until we quit dividing. This is a smart man.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GizNwzKo3n8&feature=player_embedded

T
"you seem to have so much hate in your tone as well and intolerance for the possibility that there may be another side to the way people think and live."

I'm the one preaching tolerance. You're the one who is hating on Muslims. Where is my intolerance? I'm not saying Beck should stop, I'm just saying he should stop his coercive messages.

Here. This is what I'm trying to say:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/30/benjamin.beck.culture.war/index.html?hpt=C2
"Despite his splashy show to celebrate the troops, Beck's rally was not about 'honor' any more than the controversy over the Islamic center near ground zero is about a building -- or the immigration debate is about fixing the system. Instead, Beck's rally upped the ante on America's social divides, all the while appearing to champion unity. It was a clever head-fake disguising backward conservative zealotry as feel-good inclusion."

His pep rally is all about divide-and-conquer.

How long did your daughter live in Sweden? I know a woman, maybe your age, who grew up in Norway and came here within the past 15 years. She says that you take home way less over there (after taxes, of course), but the standard of living is much higher. I don't know about you, but I might prefer to not have to worry about how I'm going to pay for something medical if something were to happen to me. I haven't had healthcare since 2004. Is this because I'm lazy and do not strive to find the right jobs that will give me benefits? Maybe in your eyes, but I don't think I am.

The pitting of unfortunate against successful is because the successful are trodding down the unfortunate. It's call social justice. Citizens should be guaranteed the same standards of living that anyone else in this country does. But as for immigration, what needs to happen is that farmers need to be monitored for the people they accept as workers in that they actually check for whether or not workers are illegal. However, I don't know how this can be done without the Big, Bad Government coming and breathing down their necks. But the whole thing's a mess. In order to keep prices down to where they're at, below-minimum wage harvesters are necessary, especially if no government subsidies are wanted. So, the question is: illegals working underpaid jobs? Or government intervention? I'll leave that one up to you. I guess option three would just be to pay more for food.

"We are our brothers keeper does not say find ways to give them everything." I'm not saying give them everything. I'm saying give to something that will give back: roads, parks, medical technology. Things everyone can use. Hell, tax payers foot the bill for stadiums all the time. OK, not all the time, but it happens. Then the corporation they're named after gets to charge insane amounts of money for tickets and vending products and other than having a nicer place to get, what does the average person get out of that? If, say, the tax payer actually got to choose how to run the stadium, would you think they would choose to pick the highest bidder for who serves hot dogs and beer? I think not. The corporation rakes in the money and you get to spend a day's wage just to go see your favorite team play.

"I'm quite puzzled how a person gets such a sour view of this country." Aren't you the one who's saying that we need to take back this nation and restore its "civil liberties"? (which are still undefined by you, as far as I've read). I think you're the one with the sour taste. I am just scared as to where Glenn Beck could take his formed masses.

I have already told you that I am not a fan of Unions. I believe that if they cut out the middle man (Union Reps), then the problem would be solved. But how is that going to happen? These Reps are like supervisors that don't really do anything but play a game of politics when something goes awry. Otherwise I don't really know what they do. So that argument does nothing for me. I prefer people who have real jobs.

I'm with you on two sides of the story. I believe I mentioned polarity = politics. These kinds of discussions are a way of getting both sides of the story. Whether or not either one of us changes our opinions is unlikely, but at least we're more informed for the next discussion. But I'm kind of sad that you chose to call my earnest opinions crap without trying to refute them with your own. For me, this is how the world works. I was hoping to get into the mind of someone who isn't like-minded to see if I'm missing something. Without a rebuttal, I may think that I'm not, so I'll continue with my conditioned thinking.

NC voted for Obama, man.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ElectoralCollege2008.svg
And Alaska is a red state. For god sakes we've been putting up with Palin for the past four years. You've only had to deal with her for two. I think I can handle this.

And socialism isn't "free this and free" and "[taking from] others that have more so they can take more from them", it's putting the production and distribution of goods in the hands of the community, like my stadium example. People are still going to have to pay to go to the game, it's just that they get to choose how things will happen so monopolies and price gouging won't happen. Oh, and might I add that with monopolies and what not, this is very much going to lessen peoples' ability to express their "God-given" talents. Only those who are calling the shots are going to make anything happen.

And reading your response I guess this is where we differ. I see the world as a capitalist pyramid. Those to have are at the top. Those who have not are at the bottom.

Here's what a sociologist has to say about the distribution of wealth in the US:
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
"In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%."

This is what socialism believes (from your favorite source, but why would they lie about their own leftist beliefs?):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
"[Socialists] generally share the view that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth within a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through a system of exploitation."

Is this not true? Is it fair for 1% of the US to control that much wealth? Is it fair that they can perpetuate this by any means they choose because they control the corporations? I suppose they have somehow earned the right to have old money or some connection that puts them in the perfect niche to be able to perpetuate this unfair balance of power. I've always thought that Republicans think the way they do ("Don't take my hard-earned tax dollars and don't tax the rich. In fact, tax breaks for all!") because one day they see themselves as making it through their hard work and dedication. But really? 100% of Republicans think that they're going to be 1% of the population. Good luck.

If the rich were to give a slightly higher percentage than the middle class (which I'm guessing you fall somewhere into its large spectrum), then the tax burden for the middle class would lessen. For easy math, say the rich makes $100/day. Say middle class makes $10/day. Now 10% of each is respectively $10 and $1. Now if taxes on the rich went up to 20%, they would be left with $80. Where, still at 10%, the middle class worker is left with $9. That's still 9 times more.

Yes, somehow the upper class works a "better" job. Yes they somehow "earned" it. But really? Are they going to miss $20 when they still have $80? How much are you going to miss $2 when you're only left with $8 after an "equal" cut gets taken from your paycheck. Great. You'll buy yourself a sandwich while your boss' boss takes his daily earning and buys a single ticket to a football game, with maybe enough for a hot dog while you watch, because the getting to go to a live game is just that damn expensive.

And maybe you'll say, well, why tax at all? Well, where they do you suppose regulation is going to come from? (I believe you agreed that at least some is necessary).

My faith lies in the fact that we create of the world what we want of it. This is why greed runs rampant in our "God-fearing" society. Those who can, will. Faith in God is for those who want to believe that there is order to this world. Without order we have to create our own goals, our own beliefs, our own structure to this life. Well, guess what. We have. And it's called religion and those who dreamt the dream of having power dreamt of an untouchable entity that cannot be denied or faulted. And who is going to disprove it? No one. You can't. That's the beauty of it. So whoever has the brains, the balls, and the gall to tell people that they know what is right by them, especially when using faith, I am going to be scared shitless, because people are going to blindly follow what they're told. Because it is written into law.

Those who don't believe that order is innate will question these laws and try to find out how things actually are. These people think for themselves. And whether or not there is actually something out there in the ether, it won't matter, because these people will find their own way and won't be led to what might be either greener pastures or the slaughter.

There's my sermon for the day: Everything around us is created by us. We didn't need a deity to create order, but we created a deity to establish order.

T
The CNN link isn't working for some reason. Maybe I'll try tomorrow. I appreciate the sentiment though.

As for the youtube link, really? Still going on about the magic loogie? At least Seinfeld made it entertaining.

Didn't choose to press charges because it's a "fraudulent issue"? It couldn't possibly be because he's not a dick? Why am I even talking about this? I can't believe it took a whole panel to field one woman's questions.

The self-proclaimed rather ethnic woman stated that racism is innate. Is it really? It's not culturally imposed? Education wouldn't "cure" or quell that?

Ok, to what you were directing my attention to:

Are women wanting equal pay because they consider themselves equal or because they consider themselves a minority? I think this is a terminology issue. It may not be a minority as much as an issue of oppression. Generally minorities are the ones getting oppressed. But if the dominant power can make rules that put others at a disadvantage, then they are not on equal footing, and they are not equal. Apartheid is a good example of minority populations exploiting a "minority". (Which I'm guessing is not the term they use over there.)

Ok, I listened further. His point: "Race should not be an issue." Ok, now how about religion?

R
with my work schedule, it is hard to give you any of my thinking daily other than ideas and links that refer to my thoughts, yet you tend to discount most of them. Here is one that is really right on for the mosque topic. If it is really a place to "come together" for all religions, then how about this?? Wonder what a Muslim would say to this? I think we know. They are seriously the most intolerant religion in the world.

Also, have you seen that the Imam of this mosque will not denounce hamas as a terrorist organization? Doesn't that at minimum give you pause?
http://politics-origin.usnews.com/usnews/php/galleries/image.php/145/3/3.jpg

R
"Ok, I listened further. His point: "Race should not be an issue." Ok, now how about religion? '

Either I am a very ineffective communicator (which I question, since I do it well at my career) or there is some other reason I cannot seem to get this point across. This is not about freedom of religion. A religious organization does not have free reigns to do whatever it asks for. There are indeed local government approvals. Some things just are better put somewhere else. How can you not understand zoning and regulations, as you support government control? Here's a good one....
http://politics-origin.usnews.com/usnews/php/galleries/image.php/145/4/4.jpg

R
Try this again. Seems CNN/Facebook installs "?%2" in there. Copy and paste if the link don't work. It's of more organized statements by the "minorities" who I just call people.
http://www.cnn.com/video/?%2Fvideo%2Fpolitics%2F2010%2F08%2F04%2Fbts.tea.party.racism.cnn

R
Still doing it. Every "%2F" is supposed to be a forward slash "/". Very odd.

R
On Beck's rally, can you agree with MLK's niece at least?
http://www.casttv.com/ext/7ui7o7n

R
I don't think I ever called YOUR opinion "crap", I may have said some link's propaganda is crap?

I do want to address your last few paragraphs and your tax example more later.

first though, what is your definition of "successful" and also your money point of "rich"; without this, I don't think I can understand how to comment.

T
You may say that Muslim is the most intolerant, but it seems like the Christians are a bit up in arms about a Muslim-affiliated community center being in town. That seems like a heavy dose of intolerance to me. I don't know how they would feel if that cartoon were actualized. I think that maybe they would appreciate that they were actually allowed to practice their religion, as right now there are many that are trying to take away that Constitutional right of theirs.

Bummer about the CNN article. Tried to search for it on their site but didn't find it.

"Would your uncle have been an admirer of Glenn Beck?"
"It's not so much the man but the message." Yeah. I'll go with that.

But here's the thing. What Glenn was preaching was ephemeral. Let's rally together and do the hippie thing: peace and love. They were doing a big group hug while Sharpton was off commemorating what it took to get to that point. He was remembering how they were able to gain civil liberties. Now I'm not quite sure what Glenn means when he says he's going to "take back those civil liberties" because, I don't really know when he's faced the kind of adversity that the African Americans did.

"He never said that the government should take care of people."
And he didn't. And this is always the problem: different day, different problem. Culture evolves and people face different adversities. This is the reason it's so hard to follow the Bible in a modern society. Things that are hardcore issues today didn't have the social structure back then. Jesus did say "give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, but did issues that were of big concern back then have changed today. For instance, gay marriage was never talked about, although being gay wasn't condoned, but back then people were able to be enslaved. The same issue arises 1700+ years later with our constitution and even today with its mere 300 years of antiquity. Culture evolves and morality evolves with it, which in turn creates a need for laws to change.

But back to King, he didn't go on about socialism, because he was more concerned with social justice. Baby steps to equality. Had he been alive today, maybe he would have a different message than Beck, or it could be the same.

But as for Ms. King, I have no problem with peace and love. Under God I can do without, but to each their own. But if you don't end up explaining your ideals, then how is one to figure out what you're following? It's so vague.

"We are one and we have a higher power." This was the third party's input. And no. If that's what they're about, then no, I don't agree. And I understand that this was a non-political meeting, but when the lead act gets paid 100% of the time as a public figure to be political, it's going to be a bit hard to separate that. It's like if you were to meet President Bush and he told you to not act like he was president, how are you going to just fall into that mode? You can't.

So the third party said that Beck united whites, blacks, and the indigenous. But what about the rest of Americans? The ones who have been here for just as many generations as us white folk? Those who may believe in Buddah, Vishnu, or Allah. This is a CHRISTIAN movement with a political agenda. Now I realize that no person has ever become president who wasn't Christian, but in theory there is supposed to be a separation of church and state so equality can be felt in every corner of the nation. Call me crazy, but this stunt seems like its reaching for the Christian and Black vote. Two "minorities" that can pull big sway.

She doesn't understand the criticism, but the point is that someone who doesn't even know about how bad it was, especially living in the south during the 60s was. He's using that hardship to further his own agenda. And that's just fucked up. That's like turning in a group project with your name on it even though the only thing you did was to put your name on it.


My opinions = crap. Ok, maybe you didn't say it, I know but you're thinking it. I'll take that back though.

Money point? Like how much is rich? I don't think I've ever been "rich", and if you knew how much I've ever made, you'd probably say the same. So really, I wouldn't know how much is rich. But I will say this: if you can afford to buy a house with cash and still be able to live your life unaffected by that loss of cash, then that's rich. Now I'm not saying that's the definition, because I'm sure you could still be rich and not be able to do that. But you definitely know you're rich when you can do that. Living on the west coast most of my life then seeing prices on the east coast, this made me realize that "rich" is rather locational, well, you know, unless you're insanely rich.

Successful. That would be achieving your dream. If I get to do mine, I don't think I'd be rich, but I also wouldn't be looking for a government handout (welfare). Success might be debt free or close to it. Now if you're talking the stereotypical "success" then that would probably equate to rich, so for that you can see the definition above.

But my question is, where in the Constitution or Bible does it say that people are guaranteed the right to be rich? Why is it the right of the powerful to also be rich. Isn't access to money a "God-given" right, as it pertains to human health and sanity (standard of living?) Money shouldn't be earned on the exploitation of others. How is treating someone poorly or not allowing someone to live a lifestyle they choose a right of another with more access to resources and power? Where does God say "May those who can screw over their neighbor do so in the name of the Almighty Dollar?"

On the contrary, let's look to Matthew 21:12-13
http://www.orlutheran.com/html/bscleans.html
Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. "It is written," he said to them, "`My house will be called a house of prayer,' but you are making it a `den of robbers.'"

It seems to me that Jesus is condemning those who are exploiting people who want to worship by making money off of them. If you have any other ideas on why Jesus is angered by this, maybe you could let me know. Think Glenn made a dollar or two at his rally?

T
I missed your second comment. Why is this "not about freedom of religion" when the whole reason people don't want it there is because it's Muslim-affiliated? How is this getting this far if zoning was an issue? It wouldn't be allowed to be built if it was and obviously progress was being made on it so that can't be it. And why doesn't ever building get scrutinized like this. This is profiling, taking special care to make sure that certain minorities feel the pressure of trying to make a life for themselves. It's intolerant people like you who are not practicing what Glenn Beck is preaching. You can now say that you are accepting by being a part of this movement. But accepting of what? Black people who have now moved down on the list of "who I should be afraid of?" and who have been superseded by another, scary culture/ethnicity. It's very ridiculous if you can't see that Beck isn't fully practicing what he preaches. Just like politics and religion, religion and culture/ethnicity are often deeply intertwined. You are accepting of some but not all. That is NOT Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s message.

T
Oh, and about religion in general. Here's something:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129528196

"The children in the study were divided into three groups. The first group was left alone and told to play the game as best they could. The second were told the same, with one difference — the children in the second group were told that there was someone special who was going to watch them. The experimenters showed the kids a picture of a very pretty woman — a character that Bering had made up whose name was Princess Alice."
...
"The question that Bering sought to answer was this: Which group of children was least likely to cheat?"

Results:
"The children who were under the impression that Princess Alice was in the room with them were just as likely to refrain from cheating as those children who were actually in the room with a physical real-life human being. A similar study Bering did with adults showed the same thing — that they were dramatically less likely to cheat when they thought they were being observed by a supernatural presence."

What? Imposing untestable thoughts into people's heads (religion) is an awesome form of crowd control?!? Whodathunkit? I'd really like to make the rules in this experiment called life. Then I could really define "rich" and "successful" for you. Let's see. Everyone needs to give 10% of their hard earned money to me and, oh, and I'm too busy to have to deal with all your problems after I tell you how to act and what to do, so I'm going to make this evil entity called government. You can use this for all your scapegoat needs. Instead of you feeling obliged to give the government money for the greater good, the government will force you to. And even though everyone else pays the government so we can establish all our communal needs, well, this church doesn't. If I'm going to keep powerful, I have to stay on top, you know. Oh, and did I mention that whatever I say goes? You can't question this!

T
And this will be the last one for tonight...

As he says, it's all about fear of the unknown. And that's what drives us, and what drives people to try to restrict what others can and can't do. We have created our own type of order, and when somebody else's varies from that enough, it scares us. And usually the fear just comes from not knowing what those people are about. Education, again, is the key.

Anyway, from the link above:
"In those early human communities when someone did something wrong, someone else in the small human group would have to punish them. But as Johnson points out, punishing itself is often dangerous because the person being punished probably won't like it.

"That person has a family; that person has a memory and is going to develop a grudge," Johnson says. "So there are going to be potentially quite disruptive consequences of people taking the law into their own hands."

On the other hand, Johnson says, if there are Gods or a God who must be obeyed, these strains are reduced. After all, the punisher isn't a vigilante; he's simply enforcing God's law.

"You have a very nice situation," Johnson says. "There are no reprisals against punishers. And the other nice thing about supernatural agents is that they are often omniscient and omnipresent.""

T
Speaking of Uncyclopedia:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-already-knows-everything-he-needs-to-know-abou,17990/

R
IIn Raleigh today. How about what annual gross income is "rich"? No subjective descriptions.

By the way, you sound like u may already be successful.

T
Well. Here's the problem. In Seattle you can buy a small 2 bdrm house for $485,000, like my friends did. Where I've been looking in the Greenville area of NC, you can buy a large 3 bdrm house for $70,000 - $125,000. So to me, "rich" is subject to location. Unless you're insanely rich, but you want to know the lower end. My girlfriend worked for a surgeon in Alaska who made $600,000/year. That is definitely rich. He was able to adopt 8 kids and still have more than enough to potentially make spoiled brats out of them. But if I had to push that down, I'd say $300,000 - $400,000/yr might be the lower end of rich -- where you can easily put a down payment on a nice house and have no worries paying the mortgage and being able to mostly buy whatever else suits your "needs".

But here's my question to you. How much federal funding does one need to benefit from before being considered socialist? How many tax-paid products do you have to use before your biggest fear is realized. Sidewalks? Roads? Parks? Schools? Things are starting to add up here. If you're anti-taxes then maybe you should stop taking advantage of the perks gained by what the feds give back to the people who may or may not "deserve" it. Should successful people be able to use sidewalks because they don't contribute as much as a "successful" person, even though these people are going to be the ones who are more likely to use the sidewalks because of their lack of a car?

Say hi to Raleigh. I'll be passing through myself in a few weeks.

T
Oh, and as for successful, I'm almost there. I say give it another 3-5 years. If I get paid to scuba dive (I already get paid to do archaeology), I'll definitely consider myself so. And I definitely wouldn't even have considered myself close to successful 5 years ago. I had to make a huge life changing decision to make this happen.

So what's your definition of success?

R
My success? It is raising my children to have families of their own and loving god and Jesus in the process. Then I'm done and sitting back to enjoy God's blessings; I'm not there yet. Notice it doesn't include money.

It would appear you may be one that gets hung on on money and rich and what someone else has or does or does not have, because..... there is nothing higher in your life, like a belief there is more. I never understand how a person can believe this is all there is. Then what? heck if I thought this was all there is, why even live? What is the purpose of living? Just to meet your personal definition/goal of success? It just makes no logical sense to me; and you too seem like a very logical person. Seems to me that your ideas lead to a dead end. How many people just go down a dead end road knowingly? I bet you are not one that does.

T
My version of success included doing what I love and getting by by getting paid to do it. I'm sure you too need money to be successful in raising a family (food, shelter), even though you don't include it in your definition. But good try. God may provide, but you have to work for it.

YOU asked my definition of rich. How is this me being hung up on money?! I'm the one who is for sharing the wealth. You want it all to yourself so others who don't have the fortunate situation that you do can rot. How does believing in more make me any less of a believer in human kind. To me this life is what we have and everyone should have an equal opportunity to enjoy it. Believing in "something more" is delusional. This is what people tell themselves to get through the shitty lives that they've been handed. The Egyptians started this idea and it probably went back a lot further than that -- to the inception of the first civilizations where people started taking advantage of others. If I tell you you are going to just have to wait to look forward to something then you'll be less likely to revolt in this "lifetime". Religion is power if you're on the right end of it. It's controlling the masses in a way that makes it so questioning authority is rather difficult. Because with questioning religion you can only get one answer -- God. And that's all the answer ever has to be. It's simple for anyone who doesn't have the time, means, or brains to look at anything for their own gratification. Doubting Thomas was the scientist of his day and Jesus degraded his desire to test the "truth".

The purpose of living for me, can actually be drawn from you answer of success. I, being a selfish creature, wish to have kids of my own to pass down my genes. Outside of that, I also have the greater desire to leave on this Earth some sort of legacy that will actually help mankind in the search for answers. I know I can't do it all, nor will I be the Einstein of my generation, but I can work as a viable member of this human species to enlighten those in the future so they don't have to do the work that I already put in. Time on this earth is short and precious and as culture and technology builds on itself people are able to grasp things that would have blown the mind of those who followed Jesus at the time he walked on this earth.

"...just to meet my definition/goal of success?" Why, yes. As I have already explained, people, over generations, have created order out of chaos, they have created this culture that we live in and what more is there to do than to find the niche that sparks your interest and push you to enhance the knowledge of that field? What makes no logical sense to me are those who have no tangible evidence of something but still put their heart and soul into believing it. The only reason why I can fathom that people can do this is out of fear for the unknown. I guess I can think of another: People who don't have the drive to seek out the truth of life and will just accept what is handed to them.

So basically either fear or laziness is keeping people under the thumb of religion. And if you think of the stereotypical American: an obese, fast-food loving, Military-supporting, red-white-and-blue waving, God-fearing, Allah-hating person, you can see that one or both of these characteristics might actually be the case.

And what's the dead end? Believing in something your whole life and dedicating much of your time and money to it only to find out in the end that it was perpetrated by someone on this earth just to keep you from being as powerful as them? Or might it be believing in something tangible, physical, and very much real, which helps not just you, but everyone from here to however far "eternity" is on this planet (and potentially others) to better understand that paradigm's intricacies as it relates to this world?

But hey, somebody's got to make the world go round. This is why I believe in the middle class and why they should get more than capitalists think they should be allotted. Who do you think works harder, the person who works a grill at a shitty fast-food restaurant who is doing the work of two people because his coworker is by no means reliable and left them hanging, all the while this person is trying to make a responsible life of themselves by doing well at their job and trying to put themselves through college on the side, or somebody whose dad was President of the United States and was able to slide through college only to own a baseball franchise and run it into the ground and then have enough oil money left over to run for governor then President themselves?

In that cartoon it described "capitalism" as "a rich uncle". And I guess I believe that. It's economic elitism. If you keep the money in the family and figure out ways to keep it in the top tier of the world economy, then you won't ever have to work hard in your life. Meanwhile, the hard workers aren't seeing any sort of benefit for the time and effort they put into supporting those on top. And then these people are also the ones who are footing the biggest bill when it comes to helping out the government. I don't see how you don't think that the rich should "pay their dues" if not in blood, sweat, and tears, like the middle class, but at least with a few more dollars than the rest of us to keep the supporting class healthy, happy, and sane.

And a growing middle class may bring down some of the lower upper class to their level, but it would also bring up the lower class to be productive individuals. There are people in this life who "choose" to be failures, but there are also others that were just never given a chance.

T
One-word magic answer.... Here's my case-in-point. Read the bottom two (5th & 6th) comments: http://www.flickr.com/photos/baggis/4950397957/

R
So you only believe in the things you can see, huh? Interesting. Enjoyed the read. More later.

T
See, hear, feel, taste, smell, experience. Yeah. So, if you can think of something, does that mean it exists? Even if you can't prove it by experiencing it, replicating it, or otherwise creating it yourself?

R
So you only believe in the things you can see, huh? Interesting. Enjoyed the read. More later.

T
See, hear, feel, taste, smell, experience. Yeah. So, if you can think of something, does that mean it exists? Even if you can't prove it by experiencing it, replicating it, or otherwise creating it yourself?

T
Oh, and how about this?
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/09/02/hawking.god.universe/index.html?hpt=C2

This is what I find most ironic after what I've been telling you. His critics say:

""Hawking's god is a god-of-the-gaps used to plug present gaps in our scientific knowledge."

As I said earlier, "God" is the answer used when we have something that is unknown and unanswerable to us. This person is just saying that Hawking's god is the knowledge that is taking away the "gods" that are needed to fill the gaps in our knowledge. So maybe WAY down the road after however many god-gaps are removed, people might start to realize that well, we don't need that magic word -- God -- to answer many, if any of our unknowns, as they have shrank over time to a fine continuum with our increase in knowledge and technology.

R
You can never understand people of faith Travis, because you have already made the decision to refuse to accept even the possibility that there is more time for your soul to exist than just on this earth. Perhaps even you even refuse to believe in the existence of the human soul that makes every person different from the other.

T
Genetics and one's chemical composition make people different. Scientists will eventually unravel that taking "God" out of that mystery as well.

R
So how do you explain this logical pattern? Just happenstance I suppose?
http://szyzyg.arm.ac.uk/~spm/neo_map.html

R
to your shroom message and the answer is God, i.e. a miracle:

“The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms – this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.” — Albert Einstein

"There lies the weakness of positivists and professional atheists who are elated because they feel that they have not only successfully rid the world of gods but "bared the miracles." (That is, explained the miracles. - ed.) Oddly enough, we must be satisfied to acknowledge the "miracle" without there being any legitimate way for us to approach it . " — Albert Einstein

"I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.” — Albert Einstein

T
Well, given the hundreds of millions of years allotted, yes. That's a bit of time to weed out things that do and don't work, allowing for mutations that are mostly neutral, but may also be detrimental or beneficial to the organism.

I just heard this analogy recently from a linguist. People have often argued that they can't fathom how random selection can create something like a human, from something ape-like. The argument is that you can stick 1,000 chimps in a room and during their whole lifetimes, if all these chimps ever do is pound on a typewriter, they're never going to ever come up with one of Shakespeare's pieces of work. However, if you get a male and female chimp that each seem to get something right, say a word or two, you can then discard all the other chimps and allow these two to procreate. This process can continue until some number of words are established.

Then, as a moderator, something representative of DNA, say a supervisor, can come along and "decide" how to piece these words together. This may seem like I'm trying to make DNA out to be an intelligent entity, but really, it's just a matter of polarity and chemical attractiveness: Adenine to Thymine (or Uracil in RNA), Guanine to Cytosine. It's just plucking what's available in the ribosomes. So eventually you can come up with something seemingly intelligent just by random selection. It just happens that this chain of nucleic acids can dictate physical and mental expressions in people and any other organism.

How DNA came into being is likely from RNA that are found in more "basic" organisms like bacteria. What seems to be the case is that symbiotic relationships, like lichen (algae and fungus), have happened on a much smaller level. Mitochondria, the energy-creating organelle of heterotrophs (consumers) was once thought to be an independent entity, but has since been consumed within a larger cell to be able to metabolize carbon chains thus creating energy. So with the encapsulate ribosomes, another symbiotic being within a cell, this can be the station for RNA to replicate with the energy source created by mitochondria, which also happens to have its own DNA. These two can then create proteins as dictated by the template of DNA.

Now, as to how all of these come together, well, ribosomes have been described in this way, "The assembly process involves the coordinated function of over 200 proteins in the synthesis and processing of the four rRNAs, as well as assembly of those rRNAs with the ribosomal proteins." Again, chemical responses. As to how all of this came together to kick off this whole process. That is where future science comes in. Here, I will begrudgingly say that you can use your "God" magic word. However, I do remember something in the news about creating fully synthetic cells.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/biology_evolution/article7132299.ece

Though these were "allowing the creation of organisms with specialised functions that could never have evolved in nature."

And, "The inventors call it the world's first synthetic cell, although this initial step is more a re-creation of existing life -- changing one simple type of bacterium into another -- than a built-from-scratch kind."
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/20/scientists-announce-produce-living-cell-using-manmade-dna/

But what I will say is that 60 years ago no one could have even fathomed to write down what I just did. This is still a relatively novel concept and now people are figuring out entire genomes of not only people and other animals, but even extinct species like Neanderthals, which, they're starting to believe have some genetic link to us.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/science/07neanderthal.html

This, to me, is why science triumphs over religion. Religion takes a static text and tries to identify how one should live their lives based on something written thousands of years ago. Science takes past and present knowledge to try to understand how we came about to be living our lives, and potential ramifications for the future.

Religion does evolve, rather begrudgingly. As a Catholic, I'm sure you remember only being able to eat fish on Fridays, now even the pope says evolution is plausible. So it's not like religion is stuck in the Dark Ages. If it were, people would have a hard time believing, now that things like the earth being round has been repeatedly proven to be true. I just don't get though, how some people can be literalists with the Bible and deny that anything on this earth could be older than ~6,000 years.

Science is progressive and religion keeps up when necessary.

T
Shroom:
Just because I believe there is a scientific explanation to all things doesn't mean I can't find something amazing. The northern lights, for example. This is when electrons in our ionosphere are excited by cosmic waves being shot out from a sun spot from the sun. This doesn't mean that the red or green bands in the sky are totally freaking cool. You can be amazed by what nature has to offer and still understand it. The amazement may be more when curiosity and the unknown are involved, but what we perceive as "beauty" still remains as such.

Einstein's "miracle" is probably what he sees from trying to tackle things like physics and relativity. He was trying to deal with things that can't yet be tested so he can only work on the level of theories. But as science progresses and people become more familiar with and involved in space, some of his major questions may be able to be broached. "Miracles" are unexplainable gaps in our knowledge that are yet untestable because of the limits in our current level of technology.

R
But why do you feel that science and religion, i.e. God cannot co-exist? How do you know "god" is not a scientist using science to create? How do you know that you are not just working so hard to figure out what God did and how He did it? Seems to me that is what your life is about. Proving how God did things. There is no way you can possibly know. How can you possibly believe in nothing? It just makes no logical sense for any scientist to think this given the logical evidence that something had to start from somewhere some how. Where did it all start? Just an accident? Where does it all end? No where? It simply has no logic, and denies the basic logic of science to provide the evidence. Even Einstein understood that something you cannot disprove could be true; so he was simply agnostic. He had no interest in playing a trump card.

you ever see the movie Contact? Great movie for this subject.

On 6000 years, how can we possibly know that when God created a tree and a mountain that it didn't have age in it? No one really knows what came when. Your whole dating system could be based on false facts....like global warming. ; )

Einstein admitted he didn't know, so ... it could be. I bet he knows now.

Oh, and no Pope ever said we came from apes.

R
Quite interesting definition of miracle. I've never heard it put that way. Oh, can you please define "nature"? You said, "You can be amazed by what nature has to offer and still understand it."

T
Science is a way of thinking and can also require faith. I don't deny that. The difference is that one is at least in part testable and the other is not. "Truth" is much more reliably acquired by seeking it out yourself rather than being told what it is.

God can co-exist. It's not what I believe, but it is a possibility. You can't really exclude something that you can't prove or disprove.

But this is why I don't believe it. I'm sure you know Occam's Razor: "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity", or basically, the simplest solution is the most likely. When you start to realize that even complicated things in nature can be explained through the scientific method, why add another variable? Things seem to be progressing along naturally, why is it that something that shows no signs of distorting the laws of physics in the common day need to be included? It's like multiplying by one. Why bother?

If I am just figuring out what God did and how they did it then it doesn't really matter. It's still the same ultimate goal. However, it is those who condemn scientists for trying to figure out the nature of our world that are generally Christian. If they felt that science was doing God's work, then that's fine, and some likely do. But there are many that are anti-evolution and see all science and blanketed under this intent of devaluing God. (Which, I for one am guilty, so there's some validity in it.)

It's not that I believe in nothing. It's that I believe in nature and the natural progression of our universe. Why do I have to believe that all of this order came from another higher order? Then you get into that chicken-and-the-egg. Well, what created that higher order. Those kinds of arguments really frustrate the crap out of me because they're build on what I see as a false foundation.

Spontaneous generation used to be thought of as a viable explanation for how flies would magically appear on a piece of rotting meat left out in the sun. Come to find out, through experimentation by Francesco Redi where he placed meat in sealed and unsealed jars, it was found that larvae were appearing in jars that were left open but not the others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation#Scientific_method

So if this belief was held until 400 years ago, imagine what we can know about the spawning of the universe 400 years from now. And why can't it be that there always was just "something"? It could have been either energy or mass and either could have fluctuated into either state, or something in between, over time. And we're talking billions of years here.

Where does it end? How are we supposed to know that. Isn't that kind of why football games are so exciting. What a structured game, but yet there is no way to tell the outcome, or even what exciting events might happen on the way to the game's final score. Is it illogical to think that it's impossible to consistently and accurately predict the outcomes of every game in a given football season? That's not even that many games when you consider the NFL's entire existence and overall number of games played.

Yup. I saw Contact. Snuck into it, in fact.

Wait. That's a new one for me, but I like the thinking. God planting pre-aged trees. That's awesome. I suppose that's like him planting dinosaur bones in the ground and having them date to millions of years ago just to test our faith. That sounds like something you might find in the Creation Museum.
http://creationmuseum.org/

But yes, you're right, I can't deny that God may have planted trees that were already aged to his liking just to confuse us and marvel at his power. Yup.

And as for the Pope, you're right he never said we came from monkeys. Nor would I for that matter. I would say that we as humans and monkeys both came from an anthropoid progenitor. For instance, if you look at the skeletal morphology of shrews, mice, rabbits, voles, all the rodents. You can see how their teeth and limb bones are all rather similar, it's mostly just the size that makes a difference.

And as for what the Pope really said, here it is: “[N]ew findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.”
http://atheism.about.com/od/popejohnpaulii/a/evolution.htm

Again, I'm not ruling anything out as a possibility, I'm just saying that if we can reach viable answers without adding another variable, why bother?

T
Nature is the generic term for the place in which we find ourselves. It is our environment which includes all of the biota and inorganic substances that we are aware of and aren't aware of. It is that in which we interact with on a daily basis or throughout our lives and beyond. It is both worldly and extra-worldly (but still in the physical sense). It is our universe and everything found within it.

R
"The difference is that one is at least in part testable and the other is not." No. There are scientific "wonders" still today. So you mis-state. You only assume that there will eventually be an explanation, but you don't know. If so, then how can you say there will not be an explanation for creation some day? You just don't know.

"God can co-exist. It's not what I believe, but it is a possibility. You can't really exclude something that you can't prove or disprove." Very good. This has been my point. You cannot blantantly say there is no overseeing entity. And you did say that before.

"it is those who condemn scientists for trying to figure out the nature of our world that are generally Christian." I've never heard of this. Ever. Why condemn someone that is getting to know Gods work better? Don't make sense to me. Now if someone is trying to DO God's job in creation, then that is a different matter. There are some things that we do not and should not do.

Quoting the Pope from an atheist site? That is interesting. Find it on this site and we'll find what he really said.
http://www.vatican.va/phome_en.htm


"Again, I'm not ruling anything out as a possibility, I'm just saying that if we can reach viable answers without adding another variable, why bother?"
Because sometimes like the shroom, you just don't know. It has not been revealed yet. And who is to say how and when it is revealed is not in God's plan too? You just don't know, so there can be no logical person that is an atheist Travis. It defies all logic that is the basis of science. This is why God and science in a balanced understanding go hand in hand.

R
On your comment on "nature", no, you said "what nature has to offer". A place cannot "offer" you anything. The environment is just space to be and exist. It cannot offer you anything to ponder. You used this term nature in a much different context than how you define it now. I know you meant what you were thinking, even though you may not believe you were thinking it.

T
You took my quote out of context. Including the previous sentence shows that I agree with your argument:

"Science is a way of thinking and can also require faith. I don't deny that. The difference is that one is at least in part testable and the other is not."

But what are these scientific "wonders"? Haven't I already explained how our limited technology hinders our abilities to explain these? This is the same as saying "God did it". Both require faith. I'm not denying that. I just back my beliefs with points that show why I feel the way I do. I suppose you do the same. I think the difference is just that mine requires more research and yours you can do from an armchair.

But really, what about religion is testable?

So if I can admit to the possibility of God, can you admit to the possibility that no god in any form exists? It's possible, right?

"'it is those who condemn scientists for trying to figure out the nature of our world that are generally Christian.' I've never heard of this. Ever."

You've never heard of this? You've never heard a fundamentalist Christian, or any other Christian condemn someone who believes in evolution? I bid you to search the internet.
http://www.gennet.org/facts/devil.html
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/4000.htm
http://www.deeptruths.com/articles/big_lie_exposed.html
http://evolvingwithdarwin.blogspot.com/2008/06/darwin-liar-and-thief.html

"There are some things that we do not and should not do."
Says who? Your fears? Societies fears?

Is about.com really atheist? I had never stopped to consider it. What I do think is funny is that you discredit a QUOTE. Really? Do you think that these sites sit around and manufacture quotes from some high-ranking individual and think that they won't be caught in the act? Their opinions may lean toward things that the pope might not see as factual, but I don't think they're going to misquote the pope. And I appreciate the link you sent, but it might be a bit nicer if you actually found some quotes yourself rather than sending me to a home page.

Me: "if we can reach viable answers without adding another variable, why bother?"
You: "Because sometimes like the shroom, you just don't know."

And this is my point. Just because you don't know doesn't mean you can't try to figure it out.

"Why's the TV not work?"
"Dunno. Button doesn't work."
"Is it plugged in?"
"Dunno."
"Oh look, it's not. Problem solved. All I had to do was GET OF MY ASS AND LOOK."

"And who is to say how and when it is revealed is not in God's plan too?"

Reads: "And who is to say when we'll figure it out?"
There you go again putting that variable in there for no reason.

R
On the Pope and what he really said, you can find the whole speech here. Notice there was some translation issues.

"The English edition at first translated the French original as: "Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of more than one hypothesis within the theory of evolution." The L'Osservatore Romano English Edition subsequently amended the text to that given in the body of the message above, citing the translation of the other language editions as its reason. It should be noted that an hypothesis is the preliminary stage of the scientific method and the Pope's statement suggests nothing more than that science has progressed beyond that stage. This is certainly true with respect to cosmological evolution (the physical universe), whose science both Pius XII and John Paul II have praised, but not true in biology, about which the popes have generally issued cautions"

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM#note

Also thought this site interesting.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/own/documents/rc_acdsci_doc_190999_publications_it.html

T
First line: "Enjoy the many attractions that Florida has to offer."
"http://www.gulf-coast.com/pdf/91.pdf"

T
So when all this came out in the press about the pope, why did no one refute it?

Socialist-plotting website, but nonetheless a quote from JPII:
""In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points....Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies – which was neither planned nor sought – constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution#Pope_John_Paul_II

Also a random opinion piece from OMG MSNBC:
"The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God."

and
"He said evolution did not answer all the questions: 'Above all it does not answer the great philosophical question, ‘Where does everything come from?'"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961/

R
Same difference. FL cannot offer you anything. It is you that go to FL and enjoy the beauty that "nature" "created". My belief of what created it does not exclude or disrespect your belief, but your beief of what created it excludes (trumps in your word) my belief. Usually the intolerant and exclusionary one is logically the wrong answer.

I read that site as "atheist.com" missed the "about". Anyway, posted the full speech. I think most people take the Pope out of context to make it sound like what they believe. He is actually saying the same thing I've been saying, that what ever it is, God created it, and he was a man that believed in science. He was so smart and such a holy man. I thought you'd find some of his speeches on science interesting.

"So if I can admit to the possibility of God, can you admit to the possibility that no god in any form exists? It's possible, right?"

No I cannot. For the simplest and oldest argument in this debate of all time. It's quite logical actually, which I don't understand why you miss this point. If there is no God and all of this is a hoax to just get people to "get along", then I end up just like you, dead and no where but eating dirt. So what is that to you? If there indeed is an overseeing entity that demands following and worship then, ....... you are lost, and it will matter to your soul then.

R
I cannot speak better and more clearly than the devinely inspired Pope. But you must read everything to get a full understanding, not just pieces that justify your thoughts. Remember, Catholic means universal. In include. He wants to include your beliefs to validate you, but that doesn't preclude that God is in control and created the "man" that we are today. Even you agree that science and god coexist.

(friday night date with wife....later.)

T
"Usually the intolerant and exclusionary one is logically the wrong answer."
By whose standards? Talk about illogical. How can you justify this statement? You're just trying to pull the "holier than thou" card right here. The nature or environment of Florida has a lot to offer -- the trees,flowers and swamps, the geology, the karsts. You're trying to mold my definition of nature into an entity. If you need to believe in "Nature", then go for it, but I just used it as a generic term for the environment. You're playing with semantics here.

JPII was a pretty good man. He was forward-thinking, which is much more than can be said about the man who currently wears that "crown".

Me: "So if I can admit to the possibility of God, can you admit to the possibility that no god in any form exists? It's possible, right?"

You: "No I cannot. ... It's quite logical actually, which I don't understand why you miss this point."

Why is it possible to believe that there are two possibilities to an unknown? It seems like you're being the intolerant and exclusionary one now. Uh oh, paradox.

It seems to me that you solely believe in God because you're afraid of the consequences (which is what I've been saying all along: fear and lazy spawns believers). I am getting this from this quote:
"If there indeed is an overseeing entity that demands following and worship then, ....... you are lost, and it will matter to your soul then."

It seems to me that you're afraid to not believe. And if we were for an instance here to presume that God does exist, then wouldn't he know that you are only believing in him because of your fear? That would not make me a happy God. Maybe you should come up with another reason for believing.

T
I always thought it was ironic that Catholic meant universal. In fact I wrote about it in 2007: http://www.flickr.com/photos/baggis/358588168/

Enjoy your night. I might actually be able to get some work done now!

T
Technology enhances perspective: "'This is a good example of how better instruments can change our picture completely,' said Leen Decin of the Catholic University of Leuven in Belgium, who is the lead author of the paper about the work."
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/09/03/space.starlight.water/index.html?hpt=T2
"Scientists deduced that ultraviolet light from surrounding stars had penetrated that dusty cloud, breaking up molecules in it like carbon monoxide and silicon monoxide, which in turn released oxygen atoms.

Those oxygen atoms attached themselves to hydrogen molecules, forming water."

[And I'm sure the argument will continue. I'll add as it comes.]