Shwa

There's probably more thuggish elements, threats of violence and illegality at a typical country and western bar on a Saturday night that doesn't get reported in the news come Monday morning. One is cowboys the other is indians. Big deal.

No need for me to go study, evidence indicates that they did ponder their existence and likely in their leisure time too. So god/(s)/religion would have had to be invented first since atheism needs something to deny. Is this what you are saying?

Frankly I am not inclined to care whether you appreciate my view or not, that is irrelevant. But I do think it is an interesting question: has US military action dramatically escalated since WWII? So far you haven't given me any indication that it has which fits with my impression that the US has acted as it always has albeit with increased technological and economical capabilities which likely parallel any growth in military action. I am not saying that it is any less atrocious, just not all that different previous to 1945. Making proxy war a part of the equation is a very important distinction for two reasons. For one, intervention-by-proxy also applies to the USSR/Russia or China when developing a comparative analysis. And secondly - as illustrated by your comments above about East Timor - record keeping could be an issue. For instance, records of some of those 'incidents' in Central America might be not as complete as the recent records from East Timor. There could have been genocidal tactics in Honduras or Nicaragua in the early 1900's but the information of those tactics were never recorded in a form that has made public record. As well, the issue of 'public record' in any comparative analysis with the USSR and China could be another problem area.

Probably exactly like what you would do and hope that it would sort itself out when the child was mature enough to understand the implications. But deffo long after puberty. Would I ask the school to refer to him as a her or change the birth certificate? No. I don't think that is very wise. And your point about pants is very true. My daughter wore dresses or skirts on very infrequent special occasions, but grew up wearing pants. She still prefers pants and that doesn't affect her femininity at all. Heck, my boys played with dolls called GI Joes or Transformers.

It might not in the same sense that grave goods in an Egyptian grave is no indication that they believed in an afterlife. Except that they wrote that they did. As did many others cultures. So, since early man had similar grave offerings to human cultures that did believe in an afterlife, there is evidence that early man had similar beliefs. Yes it is speculation, but not to the point where anyone coming across such evidence in a dig would be surprised to any great degree. In many cases it is successfully predicted that such grave offerings will be found. That is entirely beside the point. The poster contends that atheism preceeded religion. Ah, that is the next battleground so prepare yourself - the 'other side' is arming themselves to take religion to the neuro-arena. If religion is man-made, then what is the genesis of it, so to speak? It is a social construct and whether we are hard-wired or conditioned, it likely has its roots very deep in our social capabilities. Most forms of higher primates are very social animals. But that is beside the point, which was the issue of leisure time which, by all indicators, they had plenty of in which to ponder their universe.

When you come up with formula in terms of real numbers, please let me know what the final tally is. For instance - the number of conflicts for what? Does this mean military advice to client states during the cold war and 'war by proxy?' Or does it include direct intervention? When you say globe do you mean that in the relative sense of 'the world' or are you referring to the entire planet? Do you include UN sanctioned actions or policing actions? And then there is the tie-in with economic and US foreign policy, etc. I think you will need to spend quite sometime on devising a decent formula. And then, once you get the tally, you will have to find a comparative to define what 'drastically' means. That is, drastically compared to whom and during what period? Themselves in a previous period? The USSR/Russia since WWII? China? I am guessing that once you get your tally you will likely see that the US has been doing what they have been doing for a couple of centuries now and there has been no sudden upturn in military action. But I am just guessing.

Maybe this might help: https://www.adbusters.org/files/media/flash/hope_and_memory/timeline.swf It's from AdBusters, but it is pretty cool. And it can be used a rough guide to conflicts. While I doubt that there can be any measure to show that the US has 'escalated military action since WWII' I would agree that the reporting on US military action since WWII has increased greatly over the past 50 years and that multiple reports of the same conflict could give one the impression of escalation.

Ah, that's the problem. When you include grave goods or some form of mortuary 'dressing' are you preparing the person for the after-life? If death was final, one would think that they'd just toss the body or eat it and spare a day or two of hunting so they could ponder their existence. (and there is some evidence of Neanderthal cannibalism so...) The point being is that from evidence we have of human behaviour with the grave goods and the mortuary dressing and all of that, is that this was in preparation for an after-life or something 'beyond.' There isn't any reason to suggest that early humans did not have the same ideas, even if they were rudimentary in that wee frontal lobe of theirs. There are some folks who believe that we are hardwired for religious or spiritual thought even as an abstraction. When you watch the Discovery documentaries on chimps, do you see them without leisure time and constantly looking for food? Hardly. And they spend their time in many social activities like play and grooming and settling differences. The common reference today was that early man of the hunter-gatherer type had plenty of leisure time for other activities besides subsistence. No duobt there was social interaction, playing and the settling of differences.

yeah but... how do you measure that? In terms of overall expenditures adjusted to modern day values between the periods of pre & post 1945? Or do you consider the number of days of conflict overall during those periods? And would you include covert action such as the training of paramilitaries or the subsidizing of client states? Is there some form of measure that makes this common knowledge?

What you likely mean to say is 'equivalenty ponder.' Either way, your doubts are noted, but you cannot demonstrate that you have knowledge of that correct? How about distinct mortuary rites along with grave goods and ceremonial objects? These suggest ritual especially with mortuary practices. How about chimp morturary customs? But again, this scant material evidence does not prove they actually had some sort of religion or god-belief system, but it leans more toward 'capable' that outright dismissal. If early man had enough time to chip an elaborate stone tool kit, complete with specialty task tools, sire children, prepare or cook food, etc., then I think it is certainly within the realm of their capabilities that they had room for this kind of thought and behavior.

Could you cite a couple of credible sources about that please? Just to clarify between what is your opinion and what is something like accepted fact. Specifically if you can show that a lesser developed frontal lobe (such as the modern human one) precludes the development of religious concepts and/or abstract thinking/creating. Thanks!

+ Anthropocentrism. How do you know that animals cannot think/create in an abstract manner? Do you mean early humans? Or how about chimps that use sticks and stone tools for food gathering and processing? Or are they not 'animal' enough for you? How do you know that "early man" was not "capable" of conceiving religion or a god? Do you have a source on this that you can share please?

OK, so... If that is a valid definition - and I presume you hold this to be true - then is there a language that can successfully communicate personal experience or personal knowledge from one person to another?

This Sumerian clay tablet shows how governments use propaganda to gain public support to go to war: http://mechanicrobotic.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/sumerian-clay-tablet.jpeg

Yeah, I agree and it kind of fits in with what MH has been saying about forums such as this "provides us with a way to elevate our abilities to discuss issues collectively." There are some hyperbolic ideologues for sure, but they are everywhere. I think most may initially come across as an ideologue, but over time, as they test their ideas, they will tend to mellow and be a little more flexible in their views. I think the portion of those that have totally invested themselves in a position that is immune to the force of reason or logic is very small. There are other benefits too. By keeping personalities - more or less - anonymous, we are exposed to - or can express those - views that otherwise would not be brought up in public discourse, but frequently make limited, private conversation. I think it is a good thing for people to be able to bring up those things for a discussion in a public forum without reprisals from the thought police. I think the mods do a good job here of allowing a wide breadth of opinion and I think it is a very good thing that they don't limit those prejudices, but allow them to be discussed freely.

So basically your perspective is that a deity is unknowable outside of personal experience or personal internal knowledge?

I have a bit of a problem with the parent's decision making process, but gender identity and sexual awareness happen fairly early in childhood and it is quite conceivable that the process happens well before 8 years of age. It seems that the mother has taken steps to address an anomoly that she has found with her child and this is her middle child, so it is not like she doesn't have experience with young children. Is there a biological effect that is causing this impression in the child like detectable hormonal changes or differences? Was there some event that changed the psychological impression of the child when they were in the formative stages of identifying with a gender? It doesn't appear from the story that the parents are anything but loving. They don't appear to have some obvious GLBT agenda, even though they have had contact with experts in the field. And is what they are asking - that the child be referred to and dressed as a 'she' - is that too far out of line? It might be their secret hope that they let the child run with it for a year to two and see if the condition peters out, so to speak. So I am curious AW, if your child presented themself like this child has, what would you do?

So does that mean we have attained a super-natural status or a supra-natural status? So major droughts and famines, pandemics, wars, old age - they are all things of the past now? Yeehaw! But wait... There are several - likely hundreds - of species that go through several generations of local stability. I wonder if a queen bee from a stable colony ever declared that 'WE BEES have stepped outside of this natural cycle' and became god-bees?

I'm a socialist and I don't think humankind is a blight. There is room for improvement for sure, but I don't look for Agent Smith when I walk the dog. Then again, I don't attribute to a sound bite the same value I would attribute to an essay, a book or a serious discussion of research. Racism in TV Body Language? OK, I also mean a discussion of serious research. Ah I see. Perhaps deep, deep down in the Western psyche - from left wing socialists to right wing facists - there is this pesistent notion of Original Sin? It just manifests itself in different ways.

I think that all roads will lead there eventually, inevitably, entropy-like. With a measure of discussion around semiotics, which should be taught as a compulsory subject in grade-school IMHO.

I don't think it is an accurate view nor a complete picture at all and don't make the mistake of assigning me to a particular generation. I am a 60's child with a foot with the boomers and a foot with the Gen X'ers. I remember hearing Herman's Hermits on the radio. I remember when the Sex Pistols were this 'new thing.' (heck, I listen to System of a Down, but that is neither here nor there The only reason I picked the 'education funding' bone with you is to illustrate how relativistic this discussion really is. You can make a point kimmie, but I can counterpoint all day - especially about education funding. And where will that get us? Let's take MH's point about choices? Are there really that many more choices for the younger generation than there were for the boomers or those previous generation? And is more choice an indicator of 'easier?' Or let's talk about the availability of food? But is nutrition any better? Or let's talk about medicine, but is health any better? Or let's talk about entropy. The only thing we can really be sure about is that things are changing and how those changes are considered is relative to the culture/sub-culture of the participants of the dialogue. It isn't really a true or false discussion. My only impression is that we have built bigger house to hold more crap. But is that any 'easier' than my Grams small little bungalow that today holds treasures? I can say, with all the evidence I have seen thus far in life, your uncertainty about the future is wholly justified. However, we both know there are alternative views that are still yet to be explored and those views are not dependent on any generation or age. To me, that is where the real value lays.

Whatever happened to turning the other cheek? And while we are at it, when did Grampa Simpson convert to militant Christian evangelism? I must have missed that episode.

The reports start out with an overall view of Ontario, then broken down by board. I was just citing my board, but funding is up provincially from 13.8b in 02-03 to 18.7b in 08-09. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/funding/0809/2008_09Projections.pdf Should they? I am not sure that all increases in funding must match inflation rates, but this could be the 'slashing' 'cut-back aspect of things. Get less what? Information? Degrees? Or are you referring to attention from the teacher? I am not sure what you mean here. Good point. But I was referring to affordability - less affordable, less degrees. Yes, for sure. There are protests about that all the time. But is there some rule of thumb that says tuition fees need to be regulated by the inflation rate?

Go back four posts.

That was a pretty good try! I think we need to settle something: You mention "religious faith" but is a simple belief in a higher power, God, creator or whatnot necessarily religious? That is, can faith ever be divorced from religious thought? The reason I ask is that you give two samples of faith - one rational and the other not so much. Yet I think for many theists, their faith is more like your rational example than the religious example.