DigitalShadow

It is somewhat sad that we have a president elect who appears to be reaching out and showing he is willing to listen to the people, yet most are too jaded to take the opportunity seriously and instead would rather make fun of him for it. Yes, I know you all were kidding and this is not directed at people here, but I still think that my statement is depressingly true in general.

My suggestion is to add a filter to the suggestion box so that you don't have to waste time manually sorting through all the people spamming things like "Resign."

I would say to get married when there is not a doubt in your mind that this is the person you want to spend the rest of your life with and grow old together with, whenever that may be. As for kids, I would wait until you are at least out of college and are sure that you are ready to handle a responsibility that will take up most of your time and energy for years to come. Disclaimer: I'm not LDS and this is just my opinion from personal experience.

I haven't realized I'm getting old yet... at least I don't think so. I'm only 27, that's not old, is it? Someone please tell me I'm not old!

I remember the original actors and if I recall they were already in their late 20's even though they were supposed to be playing high schoolers. I think these days they are using actors of the appropriate ages a lot more than they used to. I haven't seen the new 90210 though so I don't know (I only saw parts of the original one because my sister liked it and I was around 10 years old at the time).

If your kids are young enough to be easily snatched, go trick-or-treating with them. It's a simple as that. Where is the danger here? Are there really that many "victims" because of halloween or is this just mindless paranoia?

I didn't think the carbon tax was a joke, but where you went after it is rather unbelievable. From global carbon tax to ending war by creating a world millitary comprised of the world's nastiest mercenaries is quite a leap.

That sounds like an interesting premise for a movie.

I agree completely.

I wonder if anyone has ever investigated the psychology of people who compensate for deep insecurities by trying to prove that anyone who disagrees with them is somehow irrational. Edit: Every viewpoint a person has is a complex combination of many factors; some people may be in fact for gun control for the reasons in the article, but to project that particular case on all people who have a similar opinion is rediculous. Yes, much of our behavior is influenced by complex emotional factors, but those factors are different from person to person and you can not extrapolate all that from a person's stance on one particular issue.

And isn't giving money to underprivileged people also more important than those LDS commercials I've seen on TV? I'm not trying to start an argument, but it gets on my nerves when everyone gets outraged and up in arms about anyone promoting atheism, but no one cares about other religious viewpoints being promoted or advertised or actively seeking new members.

I agree with Dawkins, but I don't particularly like him. To some extent I think this is a publicity stunt to sell more books, but I also think that Dawkins believes he is helping spread the truth and is attempting a public service. I think that to ridicule him for it is just as rude as ridiculing missionaries who honestly want to spread what they believe is the truth as well.

The goal of science is to better understand the world around us and use that knowledge to our advantage. I don't know of any scientists that seek to prove or disprove God (Dawkins included). Dawkins himself would probably tell you that there is no way to disprove the existence of God, but there are also millions of myths that there are no way to disprove.

How are the buses a way of promoting his own name? They don't have his name on them anywhere. How is it any more egotistical or hate inspiring for him to put his religious opinion on a bus than it is for a Christian to put their religious opinion on a bus?

I like games and enjoy talking about them, but that is why I visit other sites as well. I'm sorry but I'll have to vote no on a new forum here for games. But then again there are many different not so used forums that I probably wouldn't have voted to create in the first place anyway, so I don't think it would hurt anything either.

I don't see how it is any different from any other religious point of view being put on the side of a bus. From what I heard it is funded by donations and is in response to a slew of Christian advertisements on the sides of buses.

Is anyone able to read anything objectively? Obviously we have our own personal filters that color the way we look at things to varying degrees and different people will get different things from this book, like every book. I do however think that there is a difference between honestly presenting an argument with the evidence and purposely using logical fallacies to underhandedly convince the reader that a particular viewpoint is right. If you look at the reviews on amazon you can see both skeptic and believer opinions. I was curious so I read through a few of them :) (Click for link) Also, out of curiousity how do you know that some were delusions and some weren't? What is it that seperates "genuine" experiences from being simply more convincing delusions? (no offense, I've never had a near death experience so I am genuinely curious here)

I wouldn't say that my case is "typical" but I have talked to many missionaries, gone through the discussions but I won't get baptized because I honestly don't think or feel that the church is true. That could change, and if it does I would join the church, but I don't have any problem with the Word of Wisdom or accountability or any of other typical things I've heard members say keeps people from being baptized.

That doesn't sound like a very fair or honest examination of the topic. Right at the beginning it presents the reader with the false dichotomy of "Do religious experiences come from God, or are they merely the random firing of neurons in the brain?" as if those are the only two possible explainations and you must choose one. I believe that religious experiences originate in the brain, but that does not mean I believe it has to be a result of random neuron firings any more than I believe being happy or sad has to be a result of random neuron firings. Mood and feelings are affected by a number of horomones and external stimulus, I believe religious experiences are simply a stronger version of normal feelings. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but at least I try to present the argument honestly. Here they frame the argument quite nicely, but it can just as easily be done for the other side: Many theists ignore hard evidence that challenges their religious prejudice clinging to the limited view that God must exist. Instead they look specifically for events that could possibly confirm this view, in the obstinate conviction that a "spiritual" world exists. I don't agree with either of those statements because they are both designed to make the other side sound deseperate with phraes like "clinging to the limited view" and "obstinate conviction" before even presenting any evidence. Just to be clear, I am not saying that the ideas presented in the book are wrong, but the way they present their argument is intellectually dishonest and appears to be meant to simply preach to the choir and give people who already agree reason to feel confident about their decision rather than truly explore the issue. Honestly I would love to read a book on that topic if it were a bit more fair with how it goes about it. Edit: I know descriptions don't always match up with the book, and it could be horribly misrepresenting the style of the book, but I would guess that it is a similar style (my apologies if I'm wrong).

I got two copies of that message today, I guess that means she likes me twice as much

Oops, I misread the last question, I thought you asked "what is it?" instead of "what is?" So you're asking what is essential for happiness? Who knows? There are many different ways to obtain happiness as can be seen by observing cultures all over the world. I'm not a psychologist so I couldn't tell you what the current prevailing theories are on what tends to make a person happy, but there are so many variables involved that I don't think anyone can say with much certainty.

Whether right or wrong, it is understandable that being certain that a loving God exists would give a warm peace of mind and leaving the comfort of that could be unpleasant and bring up questions of other events in your life. It seems like a natural reaction to me and doesn't really speak to the truth of either position in my opinion. Honestly I have never felt this empty feeling I've heard others talk about when I think about God not existing. I attribute that to the fact that I never had my hopes up that there would be anything past this mortal existance or any loving higher power. My life feels just as full and complete and rewarding as when I hear religious people talk about their lives.

One of the many paths a person can take?

I know of a good skeptics forum that may be of some help dispelling some of the conspiracy theories, but I doubt they would willingly participate. The problem is that the more people around them that deny the rediculous claims, the more it feeds into the "conspiracy" part and they become even more entrenched in their theories. I think that the best thing to do is approach carefully and ask questions to try and inspire some critical thinking rather than flat out denying the claims. I wish you the best of luck.

Simply because they founded our nation does not mean I can't disagree with them. Though if Elphaba saw this it would probably spark another huge debate over just how our founding fathers felt about religion, but I see no reason to get into that since it doesn't matter for the point I'm trying to make. I have no doubt that our country has at least some religious foundation, but I think that the seperation of religion from Government is one of the most important parts of their philosophy and one of the reasons it worked out so well. My point is that there are other countries without a strong religious population that are doing well also, not because of their lack of faith or despite it, they are simply thriving and happen to be non-religious, something which many people have told me is impossible.