StrangeSox

QUOTE (sox4lifeinPA @ Nov 13, 2008 -> 12:24 PM) mprhrpmp *removing tongue from cheek* I'm just unclear on how evolution (which I'm not necessarily opposed to from a speciation stand point) which is more or less a long term experiment in seeing which genetic codes can out last the others, can coexist with humanism. I'd not be a very good evolutionist if I helped other people out, right? Nope, evolution doesn't require cutthroat domination of everyone else. It's about survival of the species, and we work best when working together. I don't know too much about "secular humanism," but evolutionary theory doesn't say anything about charity or compassion.

"Why believe in God" is there message. I don't think secular humanism and evolution conflict. Check out Dawkin's The Selfish Gene. It talks about evolution and how organisms are programmed to pass on as many copies of their genes as possible globally and not necessarily individually. I think this is exactly the type of message put out by some religious people that the ad was responding to -- human compassion/ morality/ ethics only matter if their is a God.

Another great segment on how bad we're all screwed:

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 13, 2008 -> 10:25 AM) I think the group needlessly tried to pick on religion. Couldn't they have got the same point across by saying "Don't believe in a God? Just be good for goodness sake"? Not really, because I'd venture a guess that most atheists and agnostics already believe that. The ad seemed to be contradicting the somewhat common religious claim that morals must arise from religion/ scriptures.

The "National Civilian Security Force" is another program (or maybe even a non-program) that has been laid out with zero detail. You have no idea if there are tax breaks or incentives or who is required to do what (if anything at all) because they haven't said anything about it. To my knowledge, Rahm Emmanual wasn't a close Obama adviser, so I wouldn't put too much stock in an old interview from him. He's not the President and he's not the one who sets policy. When Obama's plan for the community service first came up on that website, it was vague and left the impression of mandatory service with nothing in return. This was in direct contradiction of several speeches and debate answers, so maybe the website was just put together hastily.

QUOTE (YASNY @ Nov 13, 2008 -> 09:20 AM) It looks like this ad was on a bus. Was this public, taxpayer funded transportation? If so, would it have been just as acceptable for, let's say, the LDS church to purchase anti Prop 8 ads on California buses last month? If not, why not? Isn't atheism a regilous point of view? In fact, God was specifically mentioned on that poster. That would tell me, that if I was head of a huge religious org like LDS that I could spend all I want to promote God and my particular religious point of view. There was an interesting case in the Supreme Court yesterday related to this issue. http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/today-at-the-...e-court-111208/ There's a public park in some city in Utah that has a 10 Commandments monument. It was donated years ago by a private group. The city recently refused to accept a monument from another religious group to be put on display in the park. The city and the Bush administration are arguing that the government is entitled to its own rights of free speech, and that its allowed to pick and choose which messages they will display. They kept bringing up Holocaust memorial vs. Pro-Hitler/ Nazi memorial as an example, and even went as far as to agree with one of the Justice's hypothetical of the government's right to keeping names off of the Vietnam memorial based on sexuality. FYI, the LDS was strongly PRO-prop 8. Prop 8 amended the California Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Nov 13, 2008 -> 08:33 AM) Then I stand corrected. I thought the scientific process was to develop a hypothesis, design an experiment to test that hypothesis, publish the results and methods in a peer review journal, have others recreate the experiment. A good theory would spark further research and eventually, through this repetition of results, something would be considered scientific fact. I guess things have changed since I was in High School. No, Tex, things haven't changed. Scientific fact and theory are two separate things and always have been. A fact is an observation. A theory is an explanation. Things do not become accepted theories until they are rigorously peer-reviewed, but there's no evolution () of observation -> hypothesis -> theory -> fact/ law. Theories stand on their own and are one of the strongest parts of our scientific knowledge. At this point? Sure. In the future? Maybe not.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Nov 13, 2008 -> 07:58 AM) Origin of life, how it started. Faith or fact? Creationist/ Biblical view? Faith. Scientific? There are plausible scientific theories as to an abiogenetic origin of life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis). I do not know very much about them so I will not comment on them. Evolution does not require abiogenesis; it is the study of changing of life forms, regardless of how they got here. Some scientific theories are not as well-supported as others. String theory isn't on as solid ground as relativity. However, any good scientist recognizes this and doesn't hold a dogmatic belief in a theory that isn't particularly well-supported. They will willingly revise or discard their old theories if new evidence comes along contradicting them. This doesn't really apply to the core theory of evolution because it is one of the most substantiated theories we have. It virtually predicted the entire field of genetics decades before it was even conceived, and has been roundly confirmed by about 150 years of discoveries. Yes, we could always discover something today or tomorrow that turns evolution on its head, but it is extremely unlikely.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Nov 13, 2008 -> 07:48 AM) Usually for something to be considered a scientific fact, it involves being able to repeat the process. So far we have not been able to repeat a primordial soup where material magically comes together and create billions of different and successful life forms. Perhaps evolution is also a higher being's process and we are discovering that. You have faith in a process no one could have seen, no one has reproduced, and with no direct evidence, only indirect. And as you mentioned, just because the majority believes it, it doesn't make it true. Perhaps I misunderstood the scientific process of making hypothesis and testing it and of peer review before something becomes fact. Again, "primordial soup" is not evolution. That is abiogenesis. (this is going off on a complete derailment of the original thread topic) We have plenty of direct evidence for evolution. There are many facts of evolution. A fact is just a piece of evidence, not an explanation. Facts form the basis for hypotheses, which are then tested and used to make up the theories of evolution. These theories are well-evidenced and supported by different fields of science (geology, genetics, cosmology, etc.). Scientists have witnessed and reproduced many aspects of evolution. We have countless amounts of direct evidence. It is also important to note that saying "it's just a theory" is an equivocation. A scientific theory is very different from the common usage of the word to mean "conjecture" or "guess." Acceptance of scientific knowledge or theory does not take faith, because faith is believing in something without evidence. Scientific research is the exact opposite of faith. Wikipedia provides a decent starting point, and talkorigins has hundreds of scientific articles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Why does it take the MLB so long to come out with these awards?

It's still advertisement. The Jesus fish is a pretty tame example, but plenty of church message boards, billboards, and bumper stickers tell me that I'm going to suffer for eternity if I don't believe what those people believe. I wouldn't support or endorse what this group did, but I still don't see what is so offensive about it. It doesn't seem insulting or demeaning to me. QUOTE (mr_genius @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 09:46 PM) Just on a side note, the argument that only stupid people believe in God is actually quite false. Unless of course the likes of Albert Einstein, Steven Hawkings, and Wernser Heisenberg are all dumb. But of course science and religion should not be taught as one. Einstein did not believe in God in the Christian sense, ie a personal God. I don't think Hawking does, either. When they speak of "God", they're talking about the "beauty of the universe" or something along those lines. Some Einstein quotes (http://www.spaceandmotion.com/albert-einstein-god-religion-theology.htm): A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. (Albert Einstein) I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954) I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein) If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed. (Albert Einstein) Two things. First, the Big Bang and the creation of life from non-life are not part of evolution. Big Bang is in the field of cosmology and the creation of life is the field of abiogenesis. Evolution is its own separate field. Second, saying evolution takes faith is incorrect. Faith means belief in something in spite of an absence of evidence. Evolution, both theory and fact, is one of the most well-evidenced and well-supported fields of science that we have. It takes no more 'faith' to believe in evolution than any other part of science, and it is certainly not upheld without evidence.

QUOTE (BearSox @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 08:48 PM) I don't see a need why people need to advertise this though. A good majority of americans, and people in general, have some belief in a greater being. I don't see why anyone's belief in god should be questioned. It's the groups money, but it's a big waste of money, as I highly doubt anyone who believes in god would suddenly change their mind about their belief by one stupid add. It might attract some atheists who are out to get christians, but that's about it, IMO. Why do I see cars covered with Jesus fish stickers on the highway everyday? Some people feel the need to advertise to others what their beliefs are. It goes both ways.

I really don't understand how better access to education and increased community service "accomplishes nothing."

I see nothing wrong with their message. It's a little abrasive, but I've been told plenty of times by religious people that you cannot possibly be a moral or good person without religion. "Be good for the sake of being good" isn't anywhere near equivalent to "chicks are hot." Then again, being good for "goodness sake" isn't mutually exclusive of religious belief.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 03:09 PM) Yeah, we discussed this a few weeks ago as I recall. It got killed in committee, thank God. I don't think it even got that far ('in committee' means its a bill being discussed, not just a hearing,right?). It was just one proposal at a hearing, but a lot of conservative pundits have picked up on it and spun it as "the Dems are trying to take ur monies!"

GM is more of an HMO that happens to make cars at this point. They really need to get out from under these crippling UAW contracts. It's their own fault for agreeing to them all these years, but they are just ridiculous.

QUOTE (juddling @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 11:30 AM) Funniest Obama headline ever......too funny ummm....Earth to CBS News.......he did that a LONG time ago.......

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 11:44 AM) It was mild because Greenspan crushed interest rates. Also, can someone tell me how Bush de-regulated the mkts? Aren't those really low interest rates part of the problem? It drove investors to look for "safe" options with better than 1% return, so they turned to mortgage-backed securities.

QUOTE (MAX @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 01:47 AM) How is someone who is in college and working their ass off to pay for it going to find an extra 100 hours to work for free? The work would be in exchange for a $4000 credit. Where are you making $40/ hour to pay for your school?

QUOTE (longshot7 @ Nov 10, 2008 -> 12:14 PM) While the church itself did not funnel money to the Yes campaign, I'm not sure why it and all religious organizations shouldn't be taxed. I don't think purporting to be holy or godly should exempt any corporation (and that's what they are) from paying taxes, esp when we're in debt as bad as we are. There are many tax-exempt non-profit, non-religious groups out there. "Purporting to be holy or godly" isn't what gets them exempt. If you remove that part of the tax code, you'd see many non-profits vanish pretty quickly.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 10, 2008 -> 11:56 AM) While I agree that Presidents get far too much blame/credit for the economy, the reality is that this administration has been an abject disaster on so many things that its hard to count. It's easier to count the things they didn't screw up.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Nov 10, 2008 -> 09:39 AM) But it is not equal with what non Church members receive. So it could be said that Prop 8 does not abridge your right to form a couple and live together forever, it only eliminates legal benefits. It seems to me that whether you make a donation for, or against, an issue, they both should be treated the same. And I thought Propositions were different than candidates. Church members are free to do as they please. The mechanism of the church itself is not.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 8, 2008 -> 08:08 AM) If he gets to appoint any Supremes, he can certainly start down that road. Besides, he doesn't have to wait for that. BTAF has the power to institute regulation that don't need to go thru congress regarding firearms manufacturing and distribution, so a few well placed individuals there can find a way to curtail a majority of the 'scary' firearms thru regulation, resulting in a defacto ban on certain styles of guns without having to try and pass any laws. If he gets to appoint any Supremes, they'll be liberals he's replacing with more liberals. Change.gov does list making the AWB permanent, though. It's under the urban crime section.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 05:54 PM) Just the small innaccuracies of... A. DUI forces you to PAY, and a scholarship pays YOU B. It is NOT MANDATORY But yeah, other than that, they are the same. It's not charity -- its community service. Plenty of high schools already have community service requirements. Where's the uproar over that? No, I don't know, and neither do you. You have no idea what the guidelines would be.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 02:35 PM) Pretty much one person in the whole thread has said that. The rest of people involved in his the discussion have been exactly what you are talking about. I would actually argue this thread is exactly what has been missing in political disscussions for the most part. Instead of everyone taking the discussion to the party platform talking points, there has been some great give and take of the issues by 95% of the people involved here. I think you are unfairly generalizing an entire thread based on one person. I agree with what you're saying here, but in my first post I was responding directly to Alpha. My point wasn't to say that it doesn't make sense to have a discussion over the issue, just that it doesn't make sense to jump all over Obama at this point. And sorry Alpha, I don't think you're being reasonable.