Gene Frenkle

This reminds me of Point Break.

He sees little difference between the 'Human Events' and AP articles, which of course is completely the problem.

That's an awfully big question. I tried to answer your question, but I guess my response wasn't very clear. The short answer is (just like with god): I don't know and I don't think there's a way to know for certain. It's closely related to the god question of course, so since you seem interested, I'll give my thoughts related to the two scenarios: If there is a god: God has chosen to give us free will, somehow, someway. This, of course, is the classic 'god did it' argument. As usual, there is not much more to say when invoking this argument, so there it is. EXCEPT... Assuming god is omniscient and omnipotent, how can we actually have free will? God knows exactly what we have done, are doing and will do forever. Of course, the 'god did it' argument trumps that line of reasoning because god is omnipotent. If there is no god, there is not 'god did it' argument, so we are bound by physics: Assuming time is continuous, it may be possible to move backward and forward through time at will. At any given point in time, all of the atoms the universe are in a very specific state. Let's say 'ten seconds ago', the state of all of the atoms in the universe is represented by S-10. Let's say 'right now', the state of all of the atoms in the universe is represented by S00. Let's say 'ten seconds from now', the state of all of the atoms in the universe is represented by S10. If there is only one timeline (a big assumption), moving backward from S10 to S-10 should find all of the atoms in the universe back to the exact state they 'were in' at that particular time. Also, moving from S-10 to S10 should find all of the atoms in the universe back to the exact state they 'will be in' at that particular time. In this case, there can be no free will, only cause and effect. I'm not sure if I'm explaining that very well. So there is no free will. UNLESS... One subscribes to multiverse theory, which states that all possible "states" of the universe at any given time are represented in some parallel universe. Whenever a 'decision' is made (free will), a new universe is created or maybe just entered to accommodate that decision. I think of this like a Choose Your Own Adventure book. In this case, free will is actually possible because you are choosing your own path in a sense. I'm not sure if I'm explaining that very well either. In the end, I'm not sure we'll ever know or if it even matters. We all have the intuitive sense that we have free will, and that seems to be enough. It will certainly twist one's head in knots thinking about it. A description of a very interesting experiment related to this can be found here. Please press play, then fast forward to the 17:00 mark: http://www.radiolab....no-special-now/ Terrible shortcomings is a too harsh. I don't think most people have allowed themselves to go down the rabbit hole far enough to fully objectively question the dogma that's been pounded into their heads since birth. There's a great deal of fear associated with most religions which makes it tough when someone starts to question his or her faith, IMO.

</staying-out-of-this-for-a-while> Actually, I have mostly religious friends. Remember, that doesn't make them all bad people. <staying-out-of-this-for-a-while>

The ignore button is your friend. I'd be sad, but I would get over it eventually. As not to bore you all, I'll stay out of this for a while (again)...

Such a nicer article without all the animated ads, pics of Ann Coulter and venomous opinion. If you were really clever, you might have included a lmgtfy link. If you were really clever. Personally, I'm not opposed to regulations involving greenhouse emissions. I'm sure you'll find plenty of support for your view in the coming posts.

I don't like religion. I like plenty of religious people. I don't know how much more plain I can be about it than that. If I get a bit heated and insulting sometimes it's because I REALLY don't like religion. You're completely right about one thing: I have no respect for blind faith. I think I have some idea of why people believe in stuff that seems irrational to me, so I don't hold it against them - I just try to change their minds (in the right setting). In real life, for the most part, I pretty much ignore it. I understand that people don't like having their belief systems held up to scrutiny, so I'm rarely offended by personal attacks. If I didn't respect someone's intelligence or potential for critical thought, I would not make the effort.

Would you mind linking to the AP article instead?

Because I used the word believe? Like I said, I dislike religion, not religious people.

Are you guys trying to say I'm not perfect? I like to think that I have the ability to consider evidence-based alternatives to what I'm "certain" of. If ever I were presented actual evidence, a compelling logical argument or even a reasoned hypothesis, I would modify my view accordingly. The longer I think about and debate this subject without being provided with such, the more ridiculous the "other side" seems to me. The more research I do related to the origins of modern religions, the incredible similarities between modern religions and ancient ones and the way human beings are simply wired to believe, the more obvious it becomes (to me) that it's all a bunch of man-made nonsense. The more religious-inspired abuse, killing and genocide I see, the more I'm convinced that religion does too much harm to be tolerated. The more people (especially kids) I see starving, suffering or dieing of horrific diseases, the more I'm convinced that no god worth my time is watching over us or taking an active interest in our lives. Religion is based on faith. Faith implies taking things at face value and not questioning, which goes against everything I believe in. I question everything and am especially wary of anything someone tells me that I need to just have faith in.

I guess I'll have to live with that for now. Maybe someday I'll figure it out. For the record, I dislike religion, not religious people. No adjectives are necessary.

"You betcha!" made me lol.

I arrogantly think my view is better because, unlike religion, it doesn't lead to war, killing, rape, etc... Put yourself in my shoes for a moment. If you were convinced that some mass delusion was resulting in such evil things, wouldn't you cry out against it? Wouldn't you try to make others see the light? You certainly aren't so soft on big government, but religion always gets the free pass - just not from "my ilk". I'm not going to apologize for caring about this to the point where I'm perceived as militant. As I said before, this is how god made me. Way to think critically!!! Seriously. Careful how far you progress, though, lest you be confused with a Progressive.

Right, I'm the bad guy. Guess it's working.

Maybe I'm giving Rush too much credit. Homespun is a word that does not get used enough.

Well, if it's in the Bible, it must be true...

She'd be like a much less-eloquent, ill-informed Rush Limbaugh. I'd certainly watch if she did the show naked.

Or even coherent speech! Or a newspaper...or a dictionary...

And your point is what? That I'm arrogant about it, militant even? Nothing gets past you, does it? It's a a bunch of fluffy crap to me. Nice job proving...nothing! I'm not going to completely get sucked into this again, but to your question: it's the nature of the beast. The difference is (nowadays at lest) that even militant atheists don't blow themselves up in the middle of a crowd so they can get their 72 virgins, or get away with the systemic rape of school children in while hiding behind the veil of Jesus. But they may trample on your feelings for time to time. Oh !@#$ing well...

And just to quote my signature one more time for emphasis: Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -Thomas Jefferson

Yawn...how boring. Atheistic arrogance in no way validates religious dogma, not even a little bit. But that sure was a nice soft, fluffy puffy piece of feel-good meaningless opinion. Sorry if I interrupted your "Inner Spiritual Journey".

I believe the correct translation is "Sarah Palin".

I know you value accuracy.

Quiz 1: Economic Left/Right: -3.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.54 Moderately left and libertarian. Quiz 2: Left: 3.98 Libertarian: 1.24 You are a left moderate social libertarian.

OK, I'm done with this for now. Peace.