Previous 11 - 20 Next
The cosmos is not disordered.
In response to:

Virtues Require Underlying Framework

johninohio Wrote: Jul 17, 2014 12:50 PM
You don't need a scientific study or the Bible to tell you that if you don't give kids a reason to wait to fulfill a desire, they won't, and if you lie to kids, they won't trust you. I hate to be negative, but Mrs. Cushman could have written this article without mentioning her son, if you catch my drift. The part about criminals not believing they have a future is a good insight. It could easily be tied in with kids raised on welfare who know that gov't money will be delivered on schedule every time, and there is nothing more to look for beyond that, and the drug culture inhabited by people who know they're slowly committing suicide, but don't care.
In response to:

Mrs. Obama Declares War on Chick-fil-A

johninohio Wrote: Jul 16, 2014 11:28 PM
I wonder what the Obama's plan 'B' is for when their school food rules have no effect on obesity? Will they then find a way to dictate breakfast, dinner and snacks outside of school? The problem of over weight children is far too complicated to be solved in such a heavy handed, simplistic way. But that's the problem with the caliber of politicians these day--they have power way out of proportion with their intellect.
You can read up on transitional forms here:
There are transitional species, and you don't understand thermodynamics at all. I doubt you know what is meant by "all things left to themselves" What you are speaking of is a closed system, which means that no matter and no energy enters or leaves the system, ever, so whatever is going on within the system eventually uses up it's energy and ceases. Such systems are very rare in nature. The earth is a very dynamic system. It's bathed in light and other types of radiation continuously. Minerals in bodies of water are constantly in motion, providing nutrients to living things. Volcanoes erupt providing nutrients to under sea organisms and rich soil to surface plants. The atmosphere itself continuously transports nutrients all over the globe. All of this activity more than compensates for the loss of materials and energy as life consumes them, dispels them and recycles them. It's this kind of scientific ignorance that is spouted by so-called apologists and picked up by ignorant acolytes that give fundamentalists a bad name.
This is the context of Einstein's statement: "The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." "Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify this assertion once again on an essential point, with reference to the actual content of historical religions. This qualification has to do with the concept of God. During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favor by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes." So, Einstein was an atheist who recognized a human propensity for inventing gods, while at the same time seeing something beneficial in it.
I would not disagree. Naturally, I'm the first kind!
Ditto again! (I'm reading from oldest to newest)
HeraldOfGalactus That is my thinking exactly, except you expressed it better than I could. Basically, I say, live and let live. Do you do anyone with a broken leg a favor by snatching away their crutch? Some crutches are good and necessary. Your point about the religious doing themselves a disservice by trying to support their faith with science or any other kind of material evidence is my basic problem with religionists. Faith is belief without evidence. If a religionist simply said, "I believe because of these ancient writings, and that's all there is to it", then I would accept that without argument. But if they use facts and logic, other than the internal 'facts' and logic of their religious doctrine, then I have to present counter arguments. I have no interest in suppressing Christianity. On balance, it's a force for good, more so than Islam and probably any other faith now existing. I abhor atheist organizations whose purpose in life is to suppress Christianity. But I think they would fall silent about Islam, for obvious reasons, and prove themselves to be bullies and hypocrites.
The military has not been asked to swear loyalty to Obama, according to snopes ( "The above-referenced January 2009 item about the Obama administration's purportedly planning to have soldiers and officers of the U.S. military pledge a loyalty oath directly to the office of the President rather than to the to Constitution is neither a genuine news article nor reflective of actual news; it's a bit of satire (which is tagged as such) from the Jumping in Pools blog."
Previous 11 - 20 Next