Figleaf

Such as ... ?

In this regard, Iran is like any other state in the world. It has nothing to gain and everything to lose by using nuclear weapons. The only thing that would provoke Iran to use nuclear weapons is, like other states, imminent danger of being overcome by a strategic threat. More worrisome might be the 'leakage' of nuclear weapons, materials or know-how to non-state actors. But even there, the advantages of doing so are not completely obvious.

He's entitled to his opinion. A number of people who would likely know what's what, are referenced above, who disagree with you.

It is not in the least 'legitimate'. What it is, is a plain lie. 'Invent' has a meaning that is thorgouhly different from what Gore said. No, invent could equally mean he came up with the idea, built it, or both. Neither of which he claimed to do. Actually, it could also mean that he picked it up at a key point and ran with what needed to be done. If you were to ACTUALLY READ this very thread, you would learn about that. That statement is a non-sequitur. If he wanted to say invented, he could have said invented. He just wanted maximum credit for what he did. Not for something he didn't do.

w/e

You know it strikes me that, observed from a hypothetical external vantage point, Universe might be seen to be intelligently creating itself. Pantheism/Panentheism may be the most difficult of Faiths to disprove. Which leads to another point -- The pre-occupation of religion/atheism discussions with the existence of God is over done, I think. Most religions have doctrines specifying extensive, elaborate renditions of heavens, hells, magical deeds of prophets, intricately spun webs of arbitrary rules, prescribed rituals, food taboos, sex taboos, and incredible and variegated creation myths. Quite apart from whether God exists, there is the much more devastating question of whether It could really be so ... inane. ++++++++++++++++ I concur. An element of uncertainty is an ineluctible fact of human existence. For this reason (and quite possibly, this reason alone) the full-on atheist is an irrational-believer (thought not a Believer).

Are atheists attempting to restrict religious beliefs? Could you provide an example or two? By doing what?

Figleaf, are these mutually exclusive?A desire for clarity often leads to simplification and error. It's true, simplification may lead to error, but so too can ambiguity. If two men look at a wall, one with normal eyesight and one with superior eyesight, the one with normal vision may say 'Look, the wall is grey.' The other may say, 'Look, the wall is pixelated.' If we are to actually USE the concept of reason to the full extent it can help us, we need to use it accurately. Reason is the tool for making correct (therefore maximally useful) choices. Like any tool, it works properly in certain ways. You would not try to drive a nail with the claw end of a hammer. I disagree. Review the many discussions of religion on the forum and what do you find contributed by the religious proponents? Hackneyed doctrines long ago demolished by Bertrand Russell and others, assertions of right and wrong based on ancient documents of questionable provenance, peurile allegations that atheism and secularism are religions too, and petulant lashings out at skeptics (all the more petulant the more convincing the skeptic has been). And, to be perfectly honest, I can't even imagine how to go about giving any credit to 'wisdom' that by any measure of reason is actually nonsense. Could do, but I don't know which post you mean.

Steve has boiled away the goodwill that moderate Canadians might have extended to him by acting so nasty all the time. He also doesn't seem to get that while politics is important to him, it is governance that is important to Canadians. It's funny, for all Harper is supposed to be the 'new broom' from 'outside the beltway', he ACTS like the most spin-driven, Ottawa-centric political animal we have seen as a PM ever.

The atheist-agnostic spectrum is complex. Many people declare themselves 'atheist' based on a perceived high probability that there is no 'god', rather than on a final proof. Likewise, many 'agnostics' are effectively atheistic, and reserve only a theoretical admission that a final proof has not been rendered. And then there are deists, who think there's some numinous unexplained element of reality but that they have no particularly thorough idea of what it's like.

I understand what Dawkins is trying to convey, but I don't agree with his formulation. The application of the word 'atheist' to varieties of theists is likely to invite unproductive confusion. I'd say religious people are all 'non-believers' WRT eachothers' religions. (Nice sig, btw.)

So is your complaint simply that you don't know what 'neo-con' means?

It is not in the least 'legitimate'. What it is, is a plain lie. 'Invent' has a meaning that is thorgouhly different from what Gore said.

Why? If humans have dominion over the earth, then surely we should want to protect it. Our environmental problems arise precisely because no one is defending the earth's interests. Why? Because Dominionists' beliefs are to prefer an apocalyptic vision of the End times, and inspires them to seek to bring it about. I'm not dealing with environmental matters in particular. You've never heard of the Crusades, the Arab conquests, the Inquisition, witch hunts, pogroms, independence riots in India, Sri Lanka today, Islamofascist terrorism, the Thirty Years War, the English Civil War, abortion doctor killings, and Northern Ireland?

... Yes, since 'modern' times Christianity has been precluded from effectively 'demanding' anything from unwilling citizens. Until modern times, however, Christian religious authorities enforced adherence through coercion of various kinds. Even modern Christianity, however, still asserts that God will condemn you to eternal torment if you step out of line. Presumably this is a very effective motivator for those willing to believe in it.

In all seriousness, this kind of stereotyping, name calling and slander is really getting boring. So does your made up bushit. I called no names, I slandered no-one. What you call a stereotype, I call observation. Evidence? The evidence is history. But okay, how about a neo-con example or two for each one of those -- 1. Abusing office for ideological purposes -- Reagan-Iran-Contra. 2. Disdain for institutions -- Stockwell staying in office while investigated by the RCMP 3. Sense of entitlement - Barbara Amiel 4. Self righteous criticism of critics - the Bush administration labeling Iraq war opponents unpatriotic. ... [i'll finish this later.]

We don't need your permission or blessing to disagree. Nor I yours. That's what I've been trying to tell you.

Why do you ask?

Don't Americans manage to swear oaths without a Queen to swear them to? (Meanwhile, I was concerned whether Canada was MENTIONED, not whether it was sworn TO specifically.)

I don't think I'm specifically anti-Christian. But I'm definitely anti-religion. It's all bunch of meaningless superstition that lures people into relying on it instead of relating to reality as it is. It distracts people from things that matter, and causes them to elevate things that don't matter into exagerated importance. Religion demands that adherents be irrational, at least to the extent of 'believing' something in the absence evidence and without logic. And it insists that it is more important and authoritative than anything else, even the obligations of personal ethics that we owe to other human beings. I'm a Discordian Taoist Agnostic.

No... Great. Thank you for confirming that the rest of your comments are utterly worthless. For you to chant such an absurdity is ... well, absurd. No, but I am sure you consider yourself an expert in such matters. I can tell that your score is rising. Now that your token effort to discuss the issues has been dealt with, it's great that you've reverted to type and are now confining your comments to empty assertions of belief and petulant abuse of others.

Most of those depts that are effected, RCMP, and the military, are steep in history, dating back when Royal meant alot to all Canadians. History and tradition as M Dancer explains does mean alot to those units, it is what conects us with our past, another way to ensure "we never forget" as the poem goes. It's another way for us to share in the sacrifices of those that went before us. Time to move on. The service of those who have gone before is not unmade, and the connection today's people have to them is not severed by having a name that reflects what is important TODAY rather than what was important yesterday. What we inherit from the past must change when it no longer meets modern needs and realities. I would regard it as a very sad thing if people can't find pride in their work without an archaic and meaningless monicker. Don't blame the public for the follies of bureaucraps. Is CANADA not mentioned in their oath?!?! If true, that's utterly objectionable.

Actually, you have demonstrated the contradictions with the passion and bias of impotency in the face of political and historical reality. It is all you (or Carter) have left as President Bush completes a second term. One last spasm of condemnation.....by the man who was also called "worst US president in history". Spare us the spew, please. No matter how wrong, no matter how corrupt, no matter how partisan, that is technically true. Unless there was 'bad faith'. Did you bother to read the link? Would you be interested in knowing your Imbecile Factor for that comment? Or indeed for your whole post?

It may be a religious war in the eyes of the extremists, but I think it would be a sad mistake for us to adopt their faulty and counterproductive worldview. George Wealth-destroyer Bush has already blundered by calling this challenge a 'war'. It's not a war. It's the responsible states of the world acting against criminal nutbars. Calling it war gives them a level of credibility they don't deserve. Eh? If it's a criminal act and not war, maybe we can throw them all in jail! Maybe we can open a jail in Cuba. It's obviously a war. If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck....it probably is a duck. Ever heard the term 'self-fulfilling prophesy'?

Oh Lord indeed....and mistaken. Should have quit while ahead.....Google! http://www.fxwords.com/c/current-account-b...ted-states.html Mistaken?