sgallan

I don't consider myself a member of any party. I'll vote for whatever viable contender tramples on my rights the least. Fair enough..... looking over your votes for the past decade or so what Party has gotten the lions share?

So, folks, here's a question: Can subjective experience PROVE anything? Why/why not? It can on faith only. There is no way to prove a God, but conversely there is no way to disprove a God. Hence my signature. I am the same as you.... you deny literally hundreds of faith based belief systems.... and so do I.... plus one more.... yours.

"... until his subjective experience proves otherwise." (my addition) That's cool. I was just commenting on a theistic tendency to make every historical scientist, especially the more modern ones, as some sort of believers in a Higher Power that is basically a judeo-christain definition of God. I have even seen e-mailers saying Sagan had a deathbed conversion, that his widow actually had to come out and debunk (she happened to be there) because it annoyed her. I would guess there is something similar about Hawkings as well, and his opinion on religion is actually rather harsh.

Both men believe in a supreme being. Just had to bring this up because I here it often that people try to suggest Einstein like he was some sort of conventional religious God believer. Einstein did not believe in a higher power called God in any religious sense of the word, even though he used the term "God". Here is some quotes explaining his position....... "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) "The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism." "Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being." (Albert Einstein, 1936, The Human Side. Responding to a child who wrote and asked if scientists pray.)

No. I just don't want my daughter dating your sons (if you have any). I just have one girl. And she can beat up most of the boys her age.

I am always amazed how people get really quiet when you take an issue from a "macro" view, and the political dogma of what you believe in, to a more specific view of a person and family. It suddenly no longer becomes a talking point, but a choice you have to make...... is he/me abusing his child? If yes, should the state take my child away? Or is there some grey area in my views? That is a tough one, huh? All of the sudden it isn't just a "political " thing, but real people involved. With details. With specific beliefs of what is, or isn't abuse. The "abuse" and the "system is broke" then becomes just..... everybody who isn't me sucks..... instead of dealing with the reality. Anybody can play that game. I learned it in a debate class I took in college.

Yeah that ol' Al Gore... he is one powerful guy. Heck, he has Pelosi and Gingrich doing an add together about climate change. He has virtually all do the first world agreeing with him.... many in the second world too. He has money being spent thru legislation all over this country, and the world. He has people who hate us going along. That dude has some skills for a fat American Democrat as he has practically taken over the world. I am impressed. Those who disagree should feel stupid that you let somebody like Gore kick you political behinds.

Or, to put it another way, if it is child abuse, it's the parents who are responsible for the abuse, as long as there are other options going unused. On the otherhand I am homeschooling. I teach, about legitimate science (see several other threads on this topic). I am mostly teaching away from religion and a belief in God, in a specific systematic manner. I am teaching about safe sex - but wait until you are at least over 18 and only then with a significant other.....the whole wait until marraige thing isn't really an issue. I have my child participate in a male dominated sport, against males, with physical contact. And I let her wear make-up at age 12. And on and on.... any number of issues many on this board would frown upon (to say the least). Am I also a child abuser too? Be honest, I can take it.

be careful what you wish for... That is exactly what I wish for. I can't think of a worse place to spend eternity..... white conservative America and it's God.... yuck! Send me to fire and brimstone.... outer darkness..... anything but that heaven. Please, please, PLEASE! Funny, I had this conversation with my daughter and how many people think we will go to that kind of h*ll..... I told her I would "stock up on the s'mores". She said, "we'll get fat". I said, "we'll burn it off".

So you would follow them even they would jump off the cliff? Sorry, that had me laughing. There are experts in the cause of religion claiming to know Christ. Do I believe them or what Deity revealing their characteristics? Do I believe the claimed Astro-physis when one receives further light and reveals something different? Do I believe those in the evolution field of studies when receiving further light on 'what was'? Oddly, I used to lurk on a discussion board in the late 90's called eyring-e which was chalk full of LDS scientists, science Professors, and so forth. They very much believed in what is considered the legitimate science, which included evolution. Are you somehow suggesting that in order to be LDS in good standing one has deny the generally accepted science?

On second thought.... either what I just said, or..... God is exactly like conservative white western Americans. In which case I'd 'never' want to go to that heaven!

Okay the explanations pretty much answered my question...... it would appear to most LDS that 'stewardship' means pretty much stipping the land for everything it's worth, to heck with the potential consequences. Sort of the James Watt approach. Got it..... another reason to stay away from religions that worship conservative politics as much as they do God.

Leaving global warming out of the equation...... am I to conclude by this thread that most LDS don't really care much about the environment?

As to "Proof". The virus thing is a new one on me, but sounds intriguing, though complicated to my rather simple mind. Here's another one: Evolution predicted that whales came from terrestrial mammals; creationists laughed them to scorn. Now, at a site in Pakistan, successively deeper digs have found fossils of ambulo-cetis, a walking whale, that started as a land mammal, then a swamp dwelling mammal, then a sea creature. The fossil evidence backs the evolutionary prediction. My bottom line: God is just science we don't yet know, coupled with an overwhelming love for His children. If you ever come across a smart little girl..... she could be mine for example..... use this rationale with her. She may continue to be a God believer because you are not disputing the legitimate science. On the otherhand, if the basically anti-science argumentation of the creationalists is used on her, she will roll her eyes, think poorly of you (though she is too polite to say it) and probably continue her drift towards athiesm/agnosticsm...... and in the case of my family.... like dear old dad. Religion and legitimate science do not 'have' to be at odds with one another. There are a lot of legitimate scientists who also believe in God. Some of them are even LDS. If on the otherhand you stay with a dogmatic anti legitimate science view, and have a smart kid who studies the legitimate science, you may throw the baby out with the bathwater as it were. Sort of like some well-meaning, but misguided Southern Baptists did with me way back in 1973. Now look at me..... a nihilist godless heathen under the guiles of your Satan raising another heathen.

I'm saying that there are no "evolution failures" in the fossil record to date. I'm saying that the chances of humans arriving on the scene from inanimate material, with input or design, are probably incalculable. Therefore, it is reasonable to state, at the least, that "evolution" does not adequately address these glaring issues. Scientifically, there is a more rational explanation. Intelligent Design. Sorry, I am not biting on arguing the specifics unless you can tell me where you got your Phd in evolutionary biology, and/or what credentials you have to trump everything I mention below. If you do not have those credentials then frankly I am not interested. Being an educator I think I will go with the science departments of every accredited institution of higher learning (including the religious ones), in the best secondary educational system in the entire world, over the rantings of a handful of scientists who have decided to commit career suicide. As long as the vast majority of the science community, and every viable institution of higher learning - with professionals in the field who are WAY smarter than me and are making this their lifes work - goes with evolution, that is good enough for me. I tend not to argue evolution with them anymore than I argue rocket science with a rocket scientist. I guess I am funny that way. See, I have the legitimate science world behind my view. Something that has been ajudicated (the Pennsylvania Creationalism as decided by a conservative and Christian judge no less). So I don't really get worked up by this issue. And as far as you go, you can believe whatever you want. Just so long as it doesn't creep into legitimate science education I don't have a problem with it.

I shy from the (in my opinion) overly simplistic analogy of dropping the parts for a watch from the top of a building and having them assemble and begin to function when they hit the ground, but it is a simple means of showing the utter absurdity of "evolution"... Our bodies are trillions, if not multidudes of trillions of times more comples than a simple watch, yet we are to believe we got here by happenstance? This is what is known as "god of the gaps" which states that anything not fully understood must be from some kind of God. Historically this kind of thinking was used to explain virtually every natural phenomina, from natural disasters, to outbreaks of disease. Had it continued, without legitimate science advancing, we'd still be dying by the millions from outbreaks of the plague, and would still be "bleeding" one another as a healing method.

These "so called" globes do not even indicate 'where be dragons', for safety. And that is just so wrong!

Most of the people who are going to this film are basically of the "preaching to the choir" type. They already think bad things about legitimate science and would have continued to whether this film was made or not.

I wouldn't get to worked up about it Digital Shadow..... those who espouse creationalism will still be creating career suicide if they make an issue of this within science education. And I know I've mentioned this sort of thing on this board before so people shouldn't surprised. Legitimate education doesn't suffer mythology within science venues gladly. This documentary won't change this fact. This is as it should be because if folks want the "Biblical" theory of creationalism taught, I have a whole slew of other creationalist theories that should also get equal time. All of which could have a clever person come up with legitimate science to suggest they are true. There are so many of them it would be impossible to attempt to do the science for them. It would be absurd. Now if somebody wants to touch on all this stuff in a humnities class..... they can knock themselves out.

Somebody please define swearing for me. For example - in english - I have a friend named d*ck, who has a p*ssy cat, and lives near a dam. That p*ssy cat got pregnant, and the b*tch had a littler of nine kittens. While helping the b*tch give birth D*ck got a pr*ck in his finger. Now technically speaking there is nothing wrong with anything I said. I even put it in a context (with a real person and a real event that happened though is was me who got finger pr*ck) where it isn't remotely profane. Not even any double meanings in this context. There are people named D*ck. One can pr*ck their finger. A female cat is a b*tch. A dam is a dam. And any number of children books call cats, p*ssy cats. I am sure examples such as this could be shown in any language. Given all of this..... what is profanity Carlins seven dirty words? Taking the Lords name in vain? Or is it a subjective "useage" determination that is in the eye of the beholder? Please clarify.

Thanks, but if somebody starts an over/under pool (to charity of course) on when I get a compaint about me lodged, and banned again, I'd go with the under.

Most of the moderators think I give way too many second chances, but I think people can change, and if someone want to conform to the rules of the site and be a part of it, I'm all for it. I won't change. I am a godless heathen. I am raising another godless heathen. Godless heathens shouldn't be allowed on LDS discussion boards (this is the last religious board I actually get to occasionally). You should probably ban me for good this time and remove my contact information too. People like me are not redeemable and may corrupt the faithful because it is in our nature. Oh, and my alter-ego agrees.

Of such elementary school reasoning do atheists refute the existence of God. I am an athiest and I don't use anything like this to refute the existance of God. I cannot disprove any possible or posited God. I just see no more reason to believe in your God, than you see any reason to believe in the other God possiblities.

There is no easy way to explain to non-members why they cannot attend the sealing. True bad sad. I am a godless heathen and even I understand the concept of religious rites that are considered sacred. I respect that a great deal. Yet oddly, it is the other religious folk, moreso than the heathen like me, who take offense to a significant religious rite that transcends the "it's a wedding", aspect. On the downside of my view, if one is not religious then I see no reason for anything religious, or even formal, for a coupling to be legal. To me it is.... go to a court house.... sign some paperwork...... have it noterized.... and that is that. Outside a religious perspective.... what is the big deal?

So , no one is saying that feelings trump scientific evidence are they? To take this rhetorical question a bad place..... God told a lady to drown her children in Texas. God told those male folks in Texas to do whatever they are doing to those women and kids, and also told the women it is Gods will and instructions. Do some of you really want to go down this road rhetorical road?