AndrewL

Nor did they in the "great" democracies of North America until just a few decades ago. Andrew Few decades? How about nine? Well nine is still a blink of an eye in all of human history. (and we were considered an enlightened democracy 9 decades ago, which is the point). But its not true anyway. Quebec women were not granted the right to participate until 1940. Andrew

What you fail to understand is that your understanding of "exists", "evidence", "reality" is implicitly tied into what you are willing accept as such (i.e. reality). That may be exact opposite of how a believer from e.g. China may see the world. In her view, the "monkey god" can be as real as your disbelief in it in yours. And for me, none of you two would hold the upper hand. I'm agnostic to absolute atheism as much as the "monkey god" belief. But both me and the monkey god believer are subject to the same laws of physics and we both exist in the same universe regardless of our beliefs. Are you also agnostic to newtons theories on motion? Why not? Andrew

They are in violation for not allowing ionspections as required by the treaty. They are allowing inspection to this very moment. Besides, inspections are voluntary and it was an agreement they made outside the NPT with the IAEA. They have not violated the NPT in any way. It is their right to research and employ nuclear power. There is no evidence of any weapons program. http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents.../gov2005-77.pdf Andrew

Iran is not in violation of the NPT. They are in violation of a recent UNSC resoultion that demands they give up their right to enrich uranium. But of course, under the NPT of which Iran is a signatory, they have every right to enrich uranium to whatever level they want. They just cannot build a weapon with it. Andrew

Even when discussing "Chinese monkey god", I don't believe one can make a good argument without 1) learning all the intrinsic details of the belief; and 2) perhaps being a beliver yourself. It's near impossible to disprove somebody else's faith and I'd question if there's any point in attempting it. Im not trying to disprove 'faith'. Faith itself, if somebody has it, is real. But just because somebody possesses faith in something in no way suggests that what they have faith 'in' is real and true. In other words, as fascinating as im sure all the details behind the belief in a monkey god may be, im only interested in whether the monkey god actually exists. The details are only important to me if they contain evidence of the monkey gods existence in reality. Andrew

I didn't ask for anecdotal or thoughtful evidence of God. I asked for empirical falsifiable evidence of which none exists that i know of. Ill spare the mockery if you van actually show me some real evidence of a god of human culture that exists in reality. Without such evidence it is perfectly rational to be an atheist with respect to the gods we know from human culture. Andrew What you are asking for is proof, even if you're calling it "evidence." You just rejected the evidence on the grounds that it is not proof. I want evidence. Of the empirical falsifiable kind. Can you provide it or not? Andrew

Nor did they in the "great" democracies of North America until just a few decades ago. Andrew

You can disprove your oun interpretation of the idea, but not someone else's belief. There's simply no point because the absolute proof does not exist. Agnosticism (at least with respect to others' beliefs) is the only truly rational point of view because it does not attempt to impose one interpretation of rationality upon another. But with regards to gods that are contained within human culture it is entirely irrational to believe they truly exist based on the same interpretation of irrationality that everybody accepts in their day to day lives. Whether or not some supreme being created all of existence is another point altogether, and the only currently rational stance one could take is agnosticism with respect to that. But we all think it is lunacy to believe that the Chinese monkey god actually exists in reality... the same lunacy applies to the god of Abraham for the exact same reasons. Andrew

I didn't ask for anecdotal or thoughtful evidence of God. I asked for empirical falsifiable evidence of which none exists that i know of. Ill spare the mockery if you van actually show me some real evidence of a god of human culture that exists in reality. Without such evidence it is perfectly rational to be an atheist with respect to the gods we know from human culture. Andrew

I think a properly functioning democracy requires participation of the citizenry at all levels. I think with the press a diversity of views is what is most important. Unfortunately the mainstream does not offer any diversity in political views. There is unfortunately things that are not safe for debate in the mainstream.. and that does nothing for democracy, in fact it undermines democracy. I would say mainstream media major contribution to society is to turn people into consumers, as opposed to citizens partaking in democracy. My experience with friends and family members who watch TV is that the more one watches a TV, the less one cares about politics. Whereas, those friends and family members who read (books, blogs, newspapers, etc...) as a major component of their leisure time are far more political. Although newspaper these days tend to have a eerie sort of narrowing effect on what people think is important.... Andrew

Certainly. But the gods invented by people are all about good and evil. Religion would have no purpose for a benign god. Andrew

Just because there is no evidence for something, does not mean that it is not possible. IOW, what evidence is there to prove that there isn't some sort of God/deity? That is true. But im simply responding to the idea of what is and what is not rational. It is certainly rational for me to deny that there is a million dollars in gold buried in my back yard, even though i have not dug up my back yard to find out. I have no reason to believe there is 1 million dollars in gold, so im not likely to act as if their might be. In fact im quite comfortable to deny that there is. This is rational. (but in the end, a million dollars could actually be buried in my backyard). The situation is even worse for Gods of human imaginings since there is evidence even to the contrary. I.e., if God was all powerful, all good, and all knowing why would he design humans beings in a way that thousands of infants choke to death every year for no other reason than we breathe and eat through the same hole. Surely the God of the bible would have been more 'intelligent and kind' than that. Andrew

Hold on. One must define the content of said God first. I am agnostic about the origin of existence in general, aboslutely. But when it comes to the god described by the worlds religions it is very rational to deny their existence 100%. There is simply no compelling reason to think the god of the bible or koran is any way accurate or true, there is a complete lack of empirical evidence that would suggest they do exist in reality. Andrew That's not true. You just reject it as evidence. Irrationally. Oh please, show me the evidence that the dozens of major and minor gods of humanity exist in reality. Would your evidence apply to Zeus and Poseidon as equally as it would to the monotheistic gods of modernity? Or are you just referring to some Francis Collins silliness where he 'sees' the 'language of God' written in our DNA? If there was evidence i could not reject it. Andrew

Hold on. One must define the content of said God first. I am agnostic about the origin of existence in general, aboslutely. But when it comes to the god described by the worlds religions it is very rational to deny their existence 100%. There is simply no compelling reason to think the god of the bible or koran is any way accurate or true, there is a complete lack of empirical evidence that would suggest they do exist in reality. Andrew

Deists aren't the purest form of theist, what nonsense is this? Deists have done nothing more than reduce God down to the gaps that science has yet to fill. As soon as scientific discover takes a further bite out of that gap, the deist God will be even more insignificant. Not necessarily. Science can indeed fill in some gaps, as Darwin did with evolution. But ultimately science can never answer the question of 'why does anything exist at all'. There will always be that rather big gap in our knowledge for the unmoved mover to take up residence. Andrew

Im Atheist in regards to a personal God, or any god invented by humans. Im agnostic in regards to the possibility of a Deity. Just as i would be agnostic in regards to string theory. Interseting idea, but can you test it. Andrew

To me this is an expression of pure dishonesty. And like the pedophiles @ Bountiful, lying to your children about science and our knowledge and lack thereof of the universe is just another form of systematic child abuse. Andrew

4000 steps backwards. What an embarrassment.... of course this is Alberta, the land of eager ecological destruction and pandering to the Bush white house. The land of Canadian neo-conservatism... Alberta is a province that is very hard to respect. Maybe you should open up a museum on Alberta, since you have no knowlege of it. Yeah, i have only lived in AB my entire life. Andrew

4000 steps backwards. What an embarrassment.... of course this is Alberta, the land of eager ecological destruction and pandering to the Bush white house. The land of Canadian neo-conservatism... Alberta is a province that is very hard to respect. Andrew

Afgan Afgan Afgan The above are just some of our accomplishments, but they are so many that most sites only comment on the major ones, some of the smaller ones are building schools, hospitals, fire depts, police depts, roads, paved twin highways, irigation ditchs, demining living and farming areas, providing small amounts of cash directly towards the villages for items like wells, books, items for schools, on top of this lets not forget things that the soldiers and thier families are doing , handing out toques, gloves and mittins knitted by Canadian volenteers, gathering up tones of school supplies, handing out the tonnes of donated clothing, toys, shoes, boots, the list is endless, basically anything that has been sent to afgan... Thanks. Those links are helpful in gauging what Canada is trying to accomplish in Afg, buts ts not clear what these projects have actually accomplished. Its all been done before in Afghanistan to no avail. Yes. The Russians dis the same thing, and matched it with the same rhetoric. This makes me tremendously uncomfortable with Canada's role, and is ultimately the source of all the failed occupations in Afghanistan. The cities have never been the problem, its always the people out in the country. This is where it starts to go bad, invariably. I appreciate your efforts to share your experiences here. I imagine it would be extremely difficult to do your job if you didn't believe you were making a difference. Do they even want the freedoms we take for granted? Do you really think you will ever see a modern afghanistan that is liberal and secular? That would be pretty surprising. Im sure some of them do want this, but enough don't to make it impossible. Especially when the government is partly composed of islamicists and politicians who must do business with the Taleban at some point. I really do appreciate your comments, i will stop short of saying i appreciate the Canadian Forces work over there, because im really not sure i do. Although i am convinced you are doing what you think is best and right, which i respect. But ultimately i think our presence in Afghanistan will end just as all occupations end (notable exceptions in post WWII of course). And I think that there is a risk that Canada's security will have been degraded because of this. I do respect your individual courage and desire to do what you think is right though. Andrew

Hi Andrew. Army Guy is giving his honest assessment of Afghanistan. He hasn't given me a load of BS or the RAH RAH RAH crap. The problem that the Army has, and always will have, are the politicians, every stripe. Gord O'Connor is now a politician, and is demonstrating a level of incompetence unworthy of the position he holds. The problems in Afghanistan are complex. Your questions are valid. I would like to state that the way you are putting the questions, would almost imply that "army guy" and the Canadian Forces are responsible for the troubles and the solutions in Afghanistan. The government has had a problem for 6 years on what to do with Afghan Prisioners. The Liberals were not anymore forth coming then the CPC. Harper continues to say stupid things, but the policies are the same and were never properly addressed. Army Guy demonstrates that his loyalty is with those he serves with, and tries to explain the complexities of assemtrical warfare in an impoverished Islamic country where the cultural differences are very complex. I do believe that the combat mission in the south will have little more accomplished in 2009 then it does today. I have supported a withdrawl from this strategy. Our politicians particularly the Liberals are playing both sides of the fence regarding the needs of the mission (Should I stay or should I go). The Conservatives resorting to Name Calling and are in Denial with regards to the prisioners and these theatrics in parliment are doing no one who is directly involved in Afghanistan, any good. I never meant to imply that Canadian soldiers are in any way responsible for the issues in Afghanistan. In fact it is the exact opposite, i don't believe we should be in any way responsible for what happens in Afghanistan. Andrew

What difference exactly? Im not saying Canada is not, but is there anything specific you can point to that Canada is doing to stop Afghanistan from becoming a failed state? How do you know you are fighting AQ and the Taleban? Are you not also fighting villagers who just don't like occupiers? The narcotics economy in Afghanistan has ballooned recently. What are you doing to stop these drug lords from doing whatever they want? Many of the traffickers are part of the Karzai government that Canada is supposed to be assisting. http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0513/p01s04-wosc.html Why has the UN moved Afghanistan up from 11 to 10 on the failed states index in late 2006? Its not that i don't want to believe Afghanistan is doing great or that Canadian soldiers are not making a difference, its more that i don't know what the goal is. How can we say we have achieved victory when the conditions seem so vague? Is this an indefinite commitment that will eventually just ignominiously like all occupations of the ME do? Whenever I hear murky comments like 'we are making a difference' it sounds like the comments made by americans in iraq, or even the soviets in Afgnaistan before this invasion, or even the British before that.... I just need something to hang my hat on, because just trusting the opinions of soldiers and politicians is not good enough. Andrew

It's his board Andrew. And I for one am grateful for Greg's intervention; one that should have been totally unnecessary. I too am in favor if strict debating rules, but clarity is important. His response to me was just rude. Andrew

I'm sorry, but if you can't tell the different between someone who is being civil and someone who is being ignorant, I imagine you'll be one of the ones being shown the door. This isn't a complicated or overly arduous request. Don't be a jerk and you'll be fine - it's as simple as that. Wow, "but if you can't tell the different between someone who is being civil and someone who is being ignorant, I imagine you'll be one of the ones being shown the door" see, to me that defines what being a jerk is all about. Did you not even recognize that? My question was serious and genuine, due to the broad ways in which it could be understood. But of course you are not subject to your own rules are you? Andrew

No one will be immune from this zero tolerance policy, so I would suggest you think carefully about your behaviour on the next few days/weeks. How is one to define 'any type of ignorant behavior'? Andrew