Comment Re:It makes you uneasy? (Score 1) 1007
I agree - my response was of atheists who are hard on muslims to somebody who thought there were none.
I agree - my response was of atheists who are hard on muslims to somebody who thought there were none.
Are you saying you have empirical evidence for this claim? If so then yes. You will need some crazy-good evidence to overturn the mountain of evidence I have accrued over the years which supports the idea that "people do not return from the dead." But I'd love to see what you've got. I hope it's not just a book that makes some claims, gets some historic items right, and was written by motivated reasoners though. Otherwise your "evidence" is hardly worth the paper it was written on.
You act as though we have no process for determining which ideas are useful and which are not? This is exactly the point of the scientific method - to weed out the useful and fruitful theories from the crap.
At some point you stop listening to the guy who raves on about how the Earth is flat, or how the Earth is at the center of the universe, etc. Intelligent design is dead. It was still-born. Nothing has come from it and nothing ever will.
They have been silenced using facts, logic and argument. They just won't shut-up. Not that I'm against letting them speak - but at what point do you continue to reasonably debate with somebody who believes the Earth is flat and that ships can sail off the end of the world?
At some point in time you have the right to declare a topic no longer worthy of debate.
Science does not work like that. There are no "absolute proofs" of *anything*. What you're asking for does not and cannot exist for anything other than math (and even that requires accepting some basic facts as true a priori).
Evolution *has* been proven to a very high degree of certainty. Which is the most you can ask of a theory of anything.
I don't think we should simply shun religion per se either - but we should acknowledge when it has grossly over-stepped its bounds of knowledge. Creating a discipline with the sole purpose of over-turning what has become scientific consensus is no way to progress either.
Yeah... Try looking up Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins. That you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I might suggest a more diversified news source.
Swing and a miss.
The answer to extremism is rarely extremism in the opposite direction.
Old news. 15 years ago Philadelphia was trying to build out public WiFi.
Comcast, Time Warner, and AT&T had nothing to do with ensuring it failed.
Verizon is far more evil than Comcast or Time Warner. They've been at it longer and are more entrenched and subtle. They're the phone company after all.
The problem is that third parties do not represent the majority of the country and likely a minority of any given area.
That's not the problem. Neither do the other two parties and they do fine.
I used to think the problem with third parties was that they do not run for local offices and only focus on national offices unlesd it is a plant designed to siphon votes from a particular canditate in order to let a less desirable one get elected. But after looking around a bit, i have concluded that the honest reality is that third parties simply do not have much support. I tend to disagree with less on issues from a candidate with a big party than i disagree with on with the closest counter part third party. Many people feel the same at least on a local level and a third party is a waste on the national level because they will have to either caucus with a big party or fight both of them and end up being ignored.
Third parties simply are not big tent parties and are likely better off running as one of the big parties through the primary process. An example of this is the tea parties (yes, there are more than one).
Now if you disagree, before replying, think about how the tea party republicans have been treated and explain how any third party trying to do something without even partial support of a big party would do any better.
The problem is that you're (and the rest of us) voting for the two candidates that the "Lesters" have picked for us to vote on. The game is rigged.
There are vineyards in NH and upstate NY today. Not all grapes need warm weather. And not all wine made is "good" wine.
Law always trumps private contracts. Private contracts are enforced by law and dependent upon it. If I signed a contract that would make me a slave you couldn't enforce it (not with the legal system at least).
Driving? Is that something like burning gasoline to physically relocate his body?
Oh the horror! Imagine skills that transfer across Linux distributions! I won't LIVE in such a world!
Ahh, I see - I read that wrong. I thought it was the difference of "before vs. after" for the low-carb group.
I think there's a world market for about five computers. -- attr. Thomas J. Watson (Chairman of the Board, IBM), 1943
