DigitalShadow

I've put off reading this post for a couple days now simply because it is so long and I've been short on time lately. Now that I have read it all the way through, I find your perspective very interesting. I consider myself agnostic, and as such I don't believe it is possible to know anything as absolute truth with our limited perspective. You say that in your experience, "too many unknowingly deceive themselves" and I would strongly agree. I am curious though, what makes you sure you are not one of those people? I mean, obviously you have put a lot of thought into the subject and are not a person who is religious out of habit or appeals to authority, but what makes you sure that your faith affirming experience is "true" and that other people who feel just as strongly about their faith are wrong? I have seen many people of different faiths who are completely and truly convinced that their religion is true and cite similar, very personal experiences for the basis of their faith. Personally, I find it more likely that these experiences are simply a manifestation of their desire for there to be something more or for deeper purpose. To me, that is the best explaination for the multitude of religions that exist and have existed throughout human history. I am still open to the possibility that one religion is the "correct" one, but at the moment, I remain unconvinced. So I guess that is my basis of disbelief.

All religions claim their principles are from God and not thought up by man. While it is true that all Christians religions have a concept of tithing, the LDS church is the only one I have ever heard recommend everyone tithe regardless of their situation.

When I said bills, I was mostly referring to things like rent/mortgage, utilities, food, and other cost of living things. Some people are financially responsible, but still have trouble paying monthly bills. Edit: I guess it would have been better phrased as become homeless, because I think bankruptcy has more to do with debt.

I don't mean to offend anyone, but I do want to present my feelings on tithing because I think it is a part of why I am an investigator and not a member. From a non-member point of view, I have mixed feelings about how the church encourages everyone to pay tithing and make it a top priority. I know that it is not about the church making money and that it is a demonstration of faith, but for every "miracle" I've heard about blessings coming to a family that paid their tithing instead of paying their bills, I can't help but wonder how many people went into bankruptcy because they placed tithing as their top priority. Perhaps it is just my cynical side, but I feel uncomfortable during church or general conference when I hear them go on and on about the importance of paying tithing. Would you feel uncomfortable if you visited a friend who was a loyal follower of the Church of Scientology and you heard them encouraging everyone, even the poor to give money to them? Obviously, if the church is true, then tithing would be understandable. Unfortunately the skeptic in me is (perhaps erroneously) wary of faith based organizations that practically demand money from their followers for whatever reason. I'm sure members can easily rationalize this by saying that the church is true, end of story, but isn't that the same justification other faiths use to ask for money?

Google.

Sounds more like there is an anti-Obama "cult" to me.

I was just using the information that Traveler gave me to form a question, I was not making the claim. See my revised question: Rougly how much of the export is a direct result of human greed and how much of it is a result of necessity or humanitarian effort?

I certainly don't think oil companies are the only greedy ones. I thought it went without saying that congress was motivated by greed as well if they are allowing those practices. Let me rephrase my question: Rougly how much of the export is a direct result of human greed and how much of it is a result of necessity or humanitarian effort? To me, that question is very central to this discussion, but I honestly don't know the answer or even have a clue how to find out that type of information.

But how much of it is greedy oil companies unchecked by congress exporting to make more money and how much is out of necessity because we don't have enough refineries?

Who is exporting the oil and why? Without knowing that, I can't really say whether your plan is a good idea or bad idea. (I don't know the answer and am hoping that someone more well versed in economics could help me out here because I suspect it is somewhat complicated.)

You beat me to it! Except I was just going to suggest failblog.org in general.

I'm over 18 as well and can't access that post, can a mod please make my account reflect that? (I didn't even know this forum had posts with age restriction, or are you just joking around?)

I live in Utah. I haven't noticed any racism here, but then again I haven't noticed any minorities either. I'm half Mexican and I think I'm the closest thing to a 'minority' in the company I work for. I do think that there is more racial tension lately because of the election, but I don't think there is more racism. Racists who already existed before the election simply became more vocal and maybe even violent. At least that's what I gather from browsing forums and checking out the news from time to time.

It took me a few seconds of staring at the picture wondering why you had a problem with it before it finally hit me as to why it was such a bad idea. I doubt it was intentional, but I do think it would be a responsible action for AFA to quietly stop selling them, especially considering the temporarly increased racial tension that has come about as a result of the election.

I realize that it is not the primary mechanism of most birth control pills, but the last part of this paragraph on "How Birth Control Pills Work" leads me to believe that preventing a fertilized egg from being implanted in the uterus is an intended failsafe. (source) Interestingly that same site also defines conception as "when a fertilized egg implants itself in the uterine lining." Perhaps I misunderstood the definition of conception to begin with? I thought it was another word for the moment of fertilization?

Thank you all for responding in a respectful manner. I made this post just before I went to lunch and I was almost afraid to check it when I got back just now. I guess the only thing I still don't understand is why people who claim that life starts at conception seem to make differentiations between these scenarios: -Using birth control that intentionally prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus -Having an abortion within the first few weeks of pregnancy -Having a partial birth abortion -Killing a newborn child If human life is human life and it starts at conception, wouldn't all those situations be equally wrong and morally offensive? I have no statistics to support this, but would be willing to bet that commonly used birth control pills result in more fertilized eggs being 'killed' than abortions, why is there not more outrage over this from the strongly anti-abortion crowd?

First of all, I am not LDS and quite frankly I am skeptical of the idea of a soul to begin with, but I certainly don't rule out the possibility of it existing. So, assuming there is a soul or spirit or whatever you like to call it that exists outside of our physical body, at what point does it get 'bound' (for lack of a better word) to a body? From some of the discussions here, it seems like many people believe this happens at the moment of conception, but it also seems like many people apply this belief inconsistently. If the killing of the zygote/fetus/baby any time after conception is 'murder', why do people react so differently to partial birth abortions than they do to birth control pills that prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus? They are potentially 'murdering' a person every month, yet there is far less outrage to that practice than a single partial birth abortion. I would also like to point out, depending on what statistics you look at, up to 1/4 of pregnancies end in miscarriage. What happens to those souls if they were allocated at the moment the egg was fertilized? Why would God in His infinite wisdom set up this whole mortal trial but then deny the whole experience to a quarter of His children? These are my thoughts on the subject. I ask all these questions honestly and I'm not looking to criticize or to start another argument but I would like a calm discussion on the topic so I can better understand the other side of the debate.

The problem with that is that it looks like the large majority of abortions are performed at a point where it is not possible to keep the child alive outside the womb so that option isn't available in most cases. (source)

I love my 2007 Mazda 3... my wife would say that it is her car though.

I've never seen anything besides fear and outrage come from "suspicious white powder" being found somewhere. I seriously doubt anyone is in danger besides some poor gay person who may get beat to death in "retaliation." Don't get me wrong, I think it is truly sad that someone thought this was a good idea and I sincerely hope the person behind this is caught an punished (I visit the Temple Square from time to time and value my life as much as the next person). I do however hope people keep a cool head when reacting to this and not give in to the desired effect of the incident.

I would like to see a book with a sympathetic Zombie character. For some reason, no one ever does that.

Do you expect him to keep intact presidential orders that he doesn't agree with and go against what the majority of this country wants? From the article: I don't see what this has to do with priorities, the only reason those specific issues are in the headline and the beginning of the article is because they were the most controversial. Obama is simply doing the only thing he can right now, review all the presidential orders that already exist so that he can remove the ones that go against the political platform that the majority of Americans voted for. I would expect nothing less from a man who promised change.

Myth: Atheists have no morals because they don't believe in God Fact: Many atheists are incredibly moral people; the fact is that it does not take fear of hell or promises of heaven to realize that the world would be a better place if everyone treated their fellow man how they would like to be treated.

First, I would like the point out that Sweden is far different from the US and the vast majority of people are not religious at all there so I really don't think there is much point in comparing things that happen there to the United states where the solid majority is Christian. Second, I admit that perhaps I have assumed too much of my own view exists in the majority of "liberals." Personally I think churches should be free to be as exclusionist as they desire as long as they don't hurt anyone, but I also don't really consider myself liberal or conservative anyway. I still think there is an unhealthy level of paranoia amoung religious conservatives lately, but I will concede that it is not quite as unfounded as I initially thought (but it is close).

Judging an entire group by a minority of them who advocate extreme views is not helpful or fair and most people don't like it when that type of logic is turned on them.