gc1765

The difference is, most scientists are not absolutely certain that they are correct. They are not dogmatic the way some theists are. If evidence comes along to disprove a theory, that theory is modified. That is not the case sometimes in religion. Some theists will come up with any wild explanation so long as fits with their dogma, such as claiming that the bones of human ancestors were put there by God to test our faith. If they hadn't already made up their mind that God exists, they never would have come to such a conclusion.

Me too (but my commute isn't nearly as big as yours). To some extent, I understand why certain people have to drive. But a lot of people drive when they don't have to. Some people around here take the car when it's just as fast or faster to take the bus or ride a bike. For starters, it would be nice to see some bike lanes. I pay taxes too, why shouldn't I be able to use what I pay for without pissing off other drivers? I stick to the backroads as much as possible, and where I live it isn't too bad, but after hearing your stories about getting coffee thrown at you, I imagine that's not the case in Calgary. It's unfortunate because that 200 pound out of shape guy could easily get in shape too. That's part of the reason I do it. Actually, that's a good point. In big cities, mass transit is a definite possibility, but living close to work often isn't (unless you happen to have a million bucks for a house in Vancouver?). In small cities it's the opposite, transit sucks, but it's much easier to live close to work.

Why not kill at least Seven Birds with one stone ?

I'm not blaming you for anything. I blame the politicians 50-100 years ago, yes, but I don't blame you and never have. All I ever said was don't pretend like things in the past don't have an impact on people today. If you don't want to give your money, that's completely understandable, but perhaps you could give some of your sympathy and understanding? At least it won't cost you anything.

And I should pay for that why?!?! Am I responsible for the actions of all white men?!? Your supporting the most brutal form of racism, because it gets off looking like the 'nice' thing to do. I never abused any Indian, I never stole their land. I certainly should never pay a dime. Blaming me for the actions of people of the same colour 200 years ago is absolutely absurd and reeks of the dirtiest levels of racism. whoa, whoa, whoa. Slow down there. I never said anything about you having to pay for it or being responsible for it. All I said was you can't pretend like what happened 50 years ago doesn't still impact people today.

Except that, it's not in the past for many people. It is well known that a person who is abused is much more likely to abuse their own children.

It's like I said earlier, humanity is a result of evolution. It doesn't matter whether it's in my self interest or not, because sometimes you can't fight biology. It's not in the best interest of an obese person to eat a cheeseburger but often they do so anyways, because they evolved a sense of hunger.

If it is in fact a sincere belief in God that is causing the effect, then no. In this case, it is perfectly rational to believe in a deity in order to cause the desired effect.

If our enraged driver was thinking 'rationally' he would have realized that his experience does not prove one way or another that there is a deity. Given enough 'experiments' he could show that simply relaxing has the same effect as praying. To put it another way, there is a scientific explanation to everything. (It's easy to understand that everything must have an explanation. Science, IMO, means the truth (even if, as humans, we don't know what that truth is). Thus, any explanation is necessarily a scientific explanation)). But just because there is a 'rational' explanation does not mean that our enraged driver knows that. For example, a hundred or so years ago, people thought that mass and energy were two separate things. The 'rational' idea at the time was that they are different things. Further experiments showed that is not the case, mass and energy are equivalent. Nowadays, the 'rational' explanation is that they are equivalent, and the old explanation is wrong (even though it appeared rational at the time). If our enraged driver was infinitely smart, he would have realized (by thinking rationally) that his rage was calmed by relaxation and not necessarily by a deity. The reason why he thought the deity was the one solving his problem was a mistake on his part, it is not a flaw with the way he was thinking (rationally), because rational thinking would have showed that relaxation was the solution to his problem.

The next day his other friend tells him to count to 10 when he feels the rage. At first he thinks it is ridiculous, but tries it anyway. To his surprise, it works. He starts to question his belief in this deity and decides to conduct further experiments. The day after, he decides to try his atheist friend's suggestion and breathe deeply. It too works. Each day he tries a new (relaxation) technique, and all of them work. Sooner or later, he comes to the conclusion that staying calm & relaxed helps him deal with his rage, and he rejects the idea of a deity (not because this disproves the deity, but because any positive evidence of a deity that he had disappears).

I agree with you on that I could easily one-up you on the hyperbole here. Oil companies are the biggest group of murderers on the planet. The amount of money we spend on oil is huge. If people took all the money they spent on oil and donated it to people who can't afford cures for malaria or TB, it would save millions of lives. Ok, oil isn't the best example to use here, because it could be argued that oil also saves lives. But substitute anything unnecessary in place of oil, and it works.

The earth is cooling now? A good rule of thumb is, don't mess with nature. We should not be doing anything drastic to deal with global warming (or cooling) as it will almost certainly backfire. Not doing something (ie not emitting carbon dioxide) is usually the safest bet.

A much more logical thought is we have to stop doing "x"

Are you saying the opposition parties are working outside the system?

The opposition parties got 58% of the vote, compared to 36% for the Conservatives. If the opposition parties (and thus, indirectly, 58% of the population) agree on an issue, why should the Conservatives (indirectly, 36% of the population) get their way instead?

Ok, then use This definition "Faith - Acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or reason." You may disagree with the definition, but that's what a lot of people think when they hear the word "faith".

I think "faith" is the wrong word to use here. I suppose faith can have different meanings, but when I think of faith I think of This definition "Belief without evidence"

No, the sponsorship scandal did that.

So, you have no problem with kinsella's barney doll? After all, it worked.

I agree, but two wrongs don't make a right.

I thought conservative-types despised unions anyhow?

Apparently it was one of the employees...but you are correct, it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the owners, so no reason to boycott.

Is that really how you view lefties? You really think none of us give a damn about soldiers?

Not very many, that's precisely why I said a few hundred years ago, when things like that did happen.

Huh? Is this directed at me?