betsy

But you've fired the first shot, Slavik44. And it is a personal attack. Here's where it started (post #13)... It might be a posting style to be intense...or abrasive, but then some people will react in equally abrasive or intense manner, when they are the ones at the receiving end of it. Especially with new posters, who have not familiarized themselves with the regulars' individual persona or style of posting. And although I do not think seniority has anything to do with memberships here, being a "senior" should at least entail a certain responsibility in keeping the civility in this forum....by being a positive example to new-comers. You two have started on the wrong footing. C'mon...reach out to each other and make peace.

Why shouldn't there be a need to mention these people as natives? They are natives! And it's taxpayers who are footing the bill for this hotel fiasco! Among other things. We cannot leave ethnicity out of the equation...since we are a multi-cultural society...comprised of and categorized by various ethnic groups. Should we not specify that an "ASIAN GANG" or "ITALIAN MAFIOSO" is at the root of specific problems in society? Besides, how do we correct the problem if we do not identify and acknowledge where the problem is coming from? Anyway, being clearly identified may shake the mentioned ethnic community to get their act together and do something as a community to help solve the problem.

But if someone has a serious concern relating to a specific ethnic group, why is it racist to be precise? Being a visible minority myself, I don't think it will sit well with me if Geoffrey had titled this: "We pay while visible minorities live in luxury." That neatly ties down every ethnic group into it, doesn't it? The term, "visible minority" is, in my opinion, a racist label. Anyway, what is this "visible" stuff? It implies there's something shameful about one's ethnicity? I don't want my group to be lumped in an all-encompassing and vague umbrella of "visible minorities"......my group don't live in luxury hotels paid for by taxpayers.

Mothers can be sued by unborn children injured in car accidents Last Updated: Thursday, November 3, 2005 | 1:48 PM MT CBC News Children who are injured in car accidents while still in the womb will be able to sue their mothers under new legislation to be introduced by the province at the end of November. The opposition parties fear the legislation – the first of its kind in the country if it passes – might open the floodgates for mothers to be sued for anything they do while they are pregnant. The insurance industry is concerned what it will do to costs. Justice Minister Ron Stevens says the legislation will be written narrowly to avoid too many cases going to court. Lawsuits would be limited to the amount of the mother's personal liability. NDP MLA Dave Eggen says the ruling Tories are trying to appeal to social conservatives by eroding the rights of women. The Insurance Bureau of Canada says the province is passing the buck onto the industry, which will have to pay for the care of disabled children. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/200...ce20051103.html If I'm not mistaken, this case has recently won....but unfortunately, I can't find any link. If this unborn child had been considered by the courts to be someone who have some rights....and not just a blob....then how does this play with abortion?

Higgly, if what Leafless had quoted is entirely from the statement of Rue...then this thread says a lot about you. If this is the statement you're referring to...then it means not only have you deliberately lied to us all, but you've also maliciously tried to get the board to think of Rue in an ugly way...and tried to manipulate us into helping you to boot him out of here.

Why shouldn't he/she be permitted to stay? Besides, the only reason you knew about Rue's position is because of Rue's honesty. And I'd assume it was said while you were in the midst of some heated debate. To play along with your question, how will you go about knowing who among us all here is not loyal to some other countries first before Canada? Are we going to fill out questionaires? Personally, I think threads like this that single out members for group "trial" or initiating possible lynching and bashing, cast a negative shadow on our forum. It shouldn't be allowed.

Love brings self-esteemn and joy. Nothing is as boosting as knowing you are loved by the one you love. And this can have a positive effect on lengevity to life. Sex can shoot down self-esteem....for those insecured with their sexuality..including performance-wise, or lenght-wise. Not everyone is honest and forthright about their std. It becomes crystal clear where one got it....when the itching starts. And so is sex. That's why we've got these stds and unwanted babies....despite having condoms and other contraceptives to protect us. Love can survive and go on without sex. But can sex (with the same person) go on and survive without love? Anyway whoever wrote this poem seem to have found an excellent sex partner! And by the way he's going on extolling the virtues of their sex....I bet it wouldn't be long he'll be spouting words of love!

I disagree, I would say that very few atheists, and even fewer agnostics, are are a product of atheist parents. Atheism was not as popular and rampant before as it is now. Yes, I guess few atheists are a product of atheist parents. In fact, I'd bank on saying that a lot of atheists (depending on their age), have been born and raised in religion. Which only shows that eventually, a person disatisfied with his family's belief will seek his/her own belief. I assume a lot of atheists in this forum have been born and raised...and had belonged to a religion before becoming atheists. What would these present-day atheists impart to their children? Of course it will be their own reflections...their own opinions...their own theories...and their own beliefs.

Do you think you'd be religious today if you weren't told what to believe as a child? I wonder how many people would become religious if they were introduced to it for the first time as adults...my guess is very few. If your teen son comes to you and say, he was invited to a bible reading to get introduced and learn about Christianity? What would you say to your son? I doubt that famous atheists like Bertrand would have encouraged their sons to learn about other religions before making a decision. I doubt that they did not pass down...or at least attempt to pass down their belief to their children. If I was born into a family who don't believe there is a God...they'll be more likely to point out faults and express their criticisms or disdain or contempt or ridicule in religions (and that is what I'll be 'doctrined" with)... of course, I'll end up with an atheist belief. That's the natural way of things. We learn from parents. What is the difference? Either way...you'll end up being doctrined and "brainwashed". Atheism, just like any other belief is passed down to children.

And won? There must be another reason why those cases won....perhaps they were not really discussions....but deliberate slandering or spamming of targetted products?

I was thinking it would be good to hear if someone is writing a political blog as well to disclose if they are paid flacks from corporation or union. That too.

Amen.

This interview is supposed to air on Saturday on CTV. On one hand I support the mission...on the other hand, I sometimes tend to think the other way: let Afghans eke it out and we just beef up our security in our own soil (which is also a losing game if we don't beef up our immigration policy). But I'm behind our PM in his decisions....not because he is Harper, but because he is our elected leader.

I think that yes, getting paid by a company should be disclosed. It's up to the reader then how to take the opinion of the paid blogger....we could see it as nothing more than an extension of an advertising campaign or still take it as "neutral" and unbiased in its opinion. But of course I'd tend to regard it as just another advertisement.

Oh darn Doom, you came in this thread a little bit too late it seems. We're just actually churning and spinning and recycling what we've already covered earlier on. Anyway, yes science is all about proof. But the point is some do believe in science and/or theories by other published geniuses. Read all the way back and you'll find that this premise had been touched. And yes, faith, can be extremely dangerous. However, it need not be confined to religion alone. This premise too was touched in earlier posts. Btw, I was enjoying it too! Hasta la vista...

I guess you took it the wrong way. I was just making light of this "debate". It's just that to me an Agnostic-Atheist is as oxymoronic as police intelligence or liberal thinkers or healthy lepers. I guess at times my sense of humor really gets out of control! Anyway this thread has long past being rational or intelligent.... It became more like a comedy central on boring days for me. Guess I was the only one having fun. Bye everyone.

Aha! The dilemma of the Agnostic-atheist. You're not sure whether God exists, but you deny a belief in God. I'd be a little nervous myself.

Yes I can relate to that. My older sister seeked tons of logical answers and eventually turned away from Christianity. She embraced another belief that practiced transcendental meditation.

How were you introduced to atheism? Were you young when you were introduced to it? What particularly convinced you?

Theloniusfleabag and Dark Angel, thank you for replying. Yes, I agree that it is equally a belief. I was born to a belief and a religion. I am curious as to how atheists and agnostics have come to have their belief. Were they born to it? And if not, how were they introduced to it? What had convinced them to turn to it?

FAITH OF THE FATHERLESS: The Psychology of Atheism by Paul Vitz (Spence, 2000, from AD Books) Around ten years ago Paul Johnson wrote his thought-provoking Intellectuals in which he examined the personal lives of some famous Western thinkers, such as Rousseau and Marx. He noted that many of these great intellectuals had private lives that left a lot to be desired. He noted, in other words, a connection between belief and behaviour. In Faith of the Fatherless Paul Vitz provides a similar kind of study. He examines the lives of a number of well-known atheists, and discovers that most of them had an absent or abusive father. He argues that those who have had poor relations with their earthly father also tend to have had a poor image of their heavenly Father. Dr Vitz first examines those atheists whose fathers died when they were relatively young - atheists such as Nietzsche, Sartre and Bertrand Russell. Then he assesses atheists who had weak or abusive fathers, e.g., Voltaire, Feuerbach and Freud. Finally, as a control group, he studies some notable theists and their fathers - men such as Edmund Burke, Pascal, Chesterton and John Henry Newman. These psychological profiles make a strong case for his main thesis - fathers matter, and the world-view we carry with us into adulthood is largely determined in childhood. With the resurgence of the fatherhood movement, especially in America, this is all the more timely. Ideas do have consequences, and our ideas are heavily influenced by our upbringing. Thus the importance of a good upbringing - one that includes a mother and a father. Multitude of factors The author warns about over- simplification, and recognises that there are a multitude of factors that explain or determine how we develop. However, the fact that so many atheists have similar backgrounds does make for an intriguing hypothesis. And the details Vitz provides are quite revealing. Consider but a few examples. H. G. Wells was contemptuous of both his father and God. He wrote this in his autobiography: "My father was always at cricket, and I think [mum] realised more and more acutely as the years dragged on without material alleviation, that Our Father and Our Lord, on whom to begin with she had perhaps counted unduly, were also away - playing perhaps at their own sort of cricket in some remote quarter of the starry universe." Jean-Paul Sartre's father died when he was just 15 months old. Throughout much of his adult life he mentions fathers, and denigrates fatherhood. His philosophy promotes the idea that man can become God, that we are self-made men. More than one biographer has noted his obsession about fathers and his atheism may well tie in to his own absent father. While Vitz does note some exceptions to the pattern, he emphasises the fact that this missing ingredient of fatherhood does have a profound impact on the way people develop and what they believe in. He concludes: "Since both believers and non-believers in God have psychological reasons for their position - in any debate as to the truth of the existence of God, psychology should be irrelevant." Truth, facts, and the evidence should decide that question, not personality. However, "it seems clear from the kinds of evidence I have cited that many an intense personal 'reason' lies behind the public rejection of God ... Aside from the common superficial reasons, most serious unbelievers are likely to have painful memories underlying their rationalisation of atheism. Such interior wounds are not irrelevant and need to be fully appreciated and addressed by believers." As this book makes clear, there is a real correlation between personal psycho-history and belief systems. Of course, such childhood backgrounds are not fully determinative - people can and do change, rising above their circumstances and backgrounds. However, this book helps us to understand the passion and vehemence of some atheists, and shows us that philosophies can be as much a product of our social background as of hard reasoning. Bill Muehlenberg, a Baptist, is National Secretary of the Australian Family Association and teaches theology at several Protestant Bible colleges in Melbourne. http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/2002/mar2002p16_955.html

The Psychology of Atheism Dr. Paul Vitz September 24, 1997 These are notes of the lecture taken by an audience member. The talk was meant as an encapsulation of a book on which Dr. Vitz has been working and that he intends to publish in a year. The talk takes the opposite apprach to that usually taken in psychology and much linked to its origin: explaining religious belief. The concepts of psychology are two-edge swords that can explain not only religious belief, but also the lack of belief. He makes two assumptions about atheism: 1. major barriers to belief are non-rational, that is, psychological 2. all of us have a free choice to reject or accept God The point is to identify factors that predispose one to atheism. First, Dr. Vitz elaborated on the simpler, more shallow reasons for atheism. He reviewed his own personal story as an example. He was raised with a somewhat Christian upbringing in Ohio, but became an atheist in college at age 18 , and remained so until the age of 38, when he converted, or re-converted to Christianity. Reflection on his own life showed him that his reasons for being an atheist were superficial. Superficial reasons for atheism: 1. General Socialization-- social unease e.g. Vitz is from the Mid-west, which is boring and he wanted to be comfortable in the glamorous secular world. Voltaire was embarrassed of his provincial origin cf. flight from Jewish ghetto or fundamentalist Southern background 2. Desire to be accepted by powerful and influential professors. He noted that his professors at Stanford animadverted on every psychological topic, but were united in two things: professional ambition and disbelief in God. 3. Personal convenience. Belief in God means having to give up pleasures and free time. Mortimer Adler, in his How to Think about God, leaves the impression the the main obstacle to belief for him lies in his own will. Next, Dr. Vitz moved on to the deeper psychological reasons some people do not believe in God. He reviewed Freud's critique of belief, his projection theory: human beings are weak and need protection so they project their need by concocting an all-powerful father figure, God. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/vitz.txt

If you were reading the previous exchanges, you would've found that there is nothing to argue between us. After all, we agree on the focal point of what I was reiterating all along: Faith does not require any proof for those who believe. I am a believer. And I believe that God exists. That is my faith. And I don't need any proof. Yours is that, there is no God. That is your belief. You have placed your faith in science....that cannot prove there is no God. As the link I've given you stated (taken from a website that seem to promote your kind of belief)...that website explained that it is not science's job to prove the existence of God. Since the science you rely on cannot give you any proof of the non-existence of God....you've placed it upon me to prove that God exists. You challenge that if I cannot offer any proof that He exist, therefore He does not exist. But it is not me who needs....or crave....for any proof. It is you. So this opens to an observation...and I would say, a valid point in this discussion. You desperately want to have proof that God does not exist....so you can be re-assured in your belief that He does not exist. You project a desperate need to prove that my belief is wrong....so you can be reassured that your belief is right. You want to validate your belief. Why do you need validation, if you are secured in that knowledge? If there is no doubt in any of your minds, then your faith in your belief that there is no God should be just as firm as my belief that there is a God. You should be just as content like me to leave it at that: we have our own faith....whatever kind of belief it may be. And it does not need or require any proof. You can all give your various analysis, interpretations, conjectures, statements, claims, criticisms of my faith, theories.....you're free to do so. And I can do the same. But we still have not proven the existence or non-existence of God! However, I have no need of any reassurance(s) from science or anyone.

you're interpreting again. And so are you.

Did Chretien or his people back Dion for the leadership? What do you think? He could've backed both Rae and Dion....following the "anyone-but-Ignatieff" mentality.