Danes feel Obama is greater than Jesus

[Zenda]

You claim that these philosophies are antithetical to harmony.

No, I don't. See how my 'yes' follows your 'none'.

The philosophies of religions are all very commendable. That is not surprising, because religions were also meant as a means to provide a stable and prospering society. Unfortunately, there are always individuals who look at 'sacred' texts and think that rules which worked for people 2000 years ago, on the other side of the world, will still work for us. With accusations of slavery, you are quick enough to point out that such things happened everywhere, back then, or that it might be a matter of translation. Why don't you apply that same logic to the rest of these old books?

To add, something I read to my boys this year at Christmas time, because they are ready to contemplate the philosophical truth of it.

So that's what the 'universal pursuit for truth' is all about? Lying, and confusing little children? Scaring them by telling there are things they can't see?

I doubt btw, that this piece is really written to answer some 8 year old kid, or the writer got totally carried away and forgot where the question came from. Imagine poor little Virginia. She propably only understood the first sentence, and the next day told all her friends in school they were wrong. Guess who got to be laughed at?

[Delc]

I agree on pearls of secular wisdom. But, you are wrong on the damnation part. During the 60's, anyone who didn't look like a hippie was shunned by the popular movement, regardless of their disposition. I'm betting you too were a square.

But there weren't presidential candidates saying that squares shouldn't be considered citizens.

[kandrathe]

So that's what the 'universal pursuit for truth' is all about? Lying, and confusing little children? Scaring them by telling there are things they can't see?

If that is as deep as you go, then there is no point in continuing. I might as well go talk to a post.

[kandrathe]

But there weren't presidential candidates saying that squares shouldn't be considered citizens.

The rules on who is, and who is not a citizen are pretty clear. Would you quote what you are referring to?

[Delc]

The rules on who is, and who is not a citizen are pretty clear. Would you quote what you are referring to?

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." - George Bush Sr.

[kandrathe]

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." - George Bush Sr.

Missing part was, "The accuracy of the quote has been questioned, however, as Sherman did not tape the exchange and no other journalist reported on it."

If he did say that, it was a pretty intolerable statement for anyone holding a government office. Too bad it is merely hearsay, and that the reporter failed to turn his tape recorder on. While atheism isn't a popular position, the most fervent theist that I know wouldn't advocate denial of Constitutional rights to any class of person legally born in the US, or naturalized. Except for convicted felons... Who now can petition to get their rights back after completion of their sentence.

Also, before we diverge too far from the point, what does GWB I have to do with Christianity?

[Jester]

I agree on pearls of secular wisdom. But, you are wrong on the damnation part. During the 60's, anyone who didn't look like a hippie was shunned by the popular movement, regardless of their disposition. I'm betting you too were a square. Discernment is a process applied to everything, but you really can't control the people with the torches and pitchforks.

Hippies callin' you a square, man, is now equivalent to eternal hellfire, or torches and pitchforks?

-Jester

[eppie]

What I am trying to say, is that considering the utter lack of anything even closely resembling solid evidence, evolution explains where human beings come from about as convincingly as creationism.

This is the 'quasi-phylosopical reasoning you read more often here on the lounge form certain persons.....just because they (we) like to discuss for the sake of discussion.

For the rest your comment is useless; you not being able to understand a theory does not mean there is no evidence.

[kandrathe]

This is the 'quasi-philosophical reasoning you read more often here on the lounge form certain persons.....just because they (we) like to discuss for the sake of discussion.

For the sake of discussion, I subscribe to the Darwin's theory. :) Even some far out cosmological theories like the Big Bang has the expected corroboration of observable evidence, but I reserve the right to change my mind if something more plausible comes along.

As a courtesy to those who forward ideas of ID, I would respectfully reserve judgment until a reasonable explanation is determined.

[--Pete]

Hi,

As a courtesy to those who forward ideas of ID, I would respectfully reserve judgment until a reasonable explanation is determined.

As a courtesy to those who forward ideas of Flat Earth, I would respectfully reserve judgment until a reasonable explanation is determined.

/sarcasm off

--Pete

[kandrathe]

As a courtesy to those who forward ideas of Flat Earth, I would respectfully reserve judgment until a reasonable explanation is determined.

I didn't mean in general, but specific questions. You know... Like when someone says the Human Eye is evidence... Show them the intermediate structures. The current approach is akin to a punch in the nose for ordering water in your whiskey. Blasphemy, but no need to get nasty about it.

[kandrathe]

In other news...

Malaysian Muslims are upset that non-Muslims get to use the word Allah to describe God.

http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/relig...h-80986057.html

[--Pete]

Hi,

I didn't mean in general, but specific questions. You know... Like when someone says the Human Eye is evidence... Show them the intermediate structures.

Is it really too damn much to ask that they look for the evidence themselves? It's there, in the libraries, on television shows, on the internet. It's not lack of evidence, it's lack of intelligence, it's willful ignorance, it's putting faith ahead of facts.

I've played that game, it leads nowhere. "What good is half an eye?" So you explain the sequence from photosensitive patches to the octopus's eye. So they start questioning each and every stage and the transition to the next. And, when you are honest enough to admit that we don't have all the details yet, they claim it as a victory.

I've run into the same thing in my field. I've had ignorant fools who cannot balance their check books question quantum mechanics or special relativity because, since they cannot understand it, it must be wrong. Explain it to them? The full details can only be expressed mathematically -- we don't have the senses or language because these are fields outside of our direct experience. Every verbal explanation I've ever given or ever heard is incomplete, incorrect, or both.

The current approach is akin to a punch in the nose for ordering water in your whiskey. Blasphemy, but no need to get nasty about it.

Nasty? Putting water in good whiskey should be a capital offense -- and drinking bad whiskey is just self flagellation.

--Pete

[eppie]

As a courtesy to those who forward ideas of ID, I would respectfully reserve judgment until a reasonable explanation is determined.

Again, all scientific evidence shows that ID is crap, and that is juts another BS religious theory. If you choose to question the functioning or non-functioning of our modern day science we are back at my first remark (quasi phylosophical blabber).
Ideas that inherently cannot be proven or unproven (like the exisitence of Gods) don't really need anymore discussion.....well maybe need but that discussion would be useless.
In the case of ID my only goal would be to convince as many of the believers as possible that it is a load of nonsense. Luckily one of the Netherlands biggest (most well-known, and active through publications) believers in ID (also a very well respected scientist, with a christian background) has come back from his views. He understood that his ID-ideas were actually very unscientific.......if he went back to believing in creation I am not sure.:)

[eppie]

, since they cannot understand it, it must be wrong.
--Pete

(see also my response to Ashock) this is (without using this as an argument for proving eg enhanced greenhouse effect or evolution....because it isn't) in my opinion the big problem with most people.

So many people have an opinion about eg man made global warming without understanding even only a little bit about the science. The big issue here is that people don't even have the decency to ask themselves the question if it is right for them to have such a strong opinion about something they don't know anything about (as a result the CO2 debate has become a political right versus left debate while right or left don't have anything to do with it).

[Zenda]

Malaysian Muslims are upset that non-Muslims get to use the word Allah to describe God.

You like to generalize? Let's see... How about this one?

American Whites are angry that their country has an African-American president and that 'blacks and Puerto Ricans' will now have more rights than whites.

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/200...ory=Springfield

On second thought, this might be a bit too generalizing. Let's make it "Whites in Massachusets are angry that their country has an African-American president ...";)

[kandrathe]

You like to generalize?

Most Malaysian-Muslims support ‘Allah’ ban – Jeg Hui


Or, maybe I'm not exaggerating.

Edit: Also, Zenda, you are sometimes ludicrous. "White" people voted for President Obama in record numbers, but not because he was white, or black. Because they believed he would change the course.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-wiener/w...a_b_140839.html

There are still plenty of racists in the world (see current flap over Nevada Sen. Harry Reid), and some who'd up and burn a black church because of their racist hate. But in light of what actually happened in America in 2008, your example is ludicrous.<blockquote>"Obama has more support from white voters than any Democratic candidate in the last 30 years. According to another New York Times-CBS poll, 44 per cent of whites support Obama. If he ends up tonight with that 44 per cent, that will be more than supported Kerry, who got 41 per cent; more than Gore, who got 43 per cent; and more than Clinton in 1996, who also got 43 percent. Only Jimmy Carter got more: 47 per cent, and of course he was a southern white man."</blockquote>

[Jester]

Most Malaysian-Muslims support ‘Allah’ ban – Jeg Hui
Or, maybe I'm not exaggerating.

The quantitative data in that article comes from looking at Facebook groups...

-Jester

Afterthought: This is not to say I disagree with the cause, or that I think their conclusions are not true. Just that their method is unreliable at best.

[kandrathe]

The quantitative data in that article comes from looking at Facebook groups...

Yes. It's not an unbiased sample. Unbiased reporting is something that I wouldn't expect to happen in Kuala Lumpor. Still, I didn't qualify what I said either. I said "Malaysian Muslims are upset" -- I didn't say ALL, or MOST, or even ALOT. The unqualified statement naturally leads one to consider how wide spread the anger would be. I understand some people got so worked up about it they burned 5 church buildings now and destroyed many cars with Christian symbols on them, which would lead reasonable people to believe that many are siding against the government ruling and rioting in the streets.

Here, TIME magazine has a similar headline. Can Christians Say 'Allah'? In Malaysia, Muslims Say No.

[kandrathe]

...if he went back to believing in creation I am not sure.:)

Fortunately, science and religion don't have to conflict. People are capable of being spiritual, and rational at the same time. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. "

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1259/can-scien...h-be-reconciled