Shwa

Yes, based on a faithful interpretation of a book. The issue is not with the Bible, so there is no hair splitting here. I am not questioning your ability to prove to yourself (internal) that the Bible is true, but the nature of the information you advance to others (external) in support of your "proof" of anything. Again, with the hypochondria. I don't see any great proclamation about the validity of anything you have presented to the skeptics. Nothing. Nor do I see any great change in the spiritual movement of the masses and - one would think - there would be with the universal truth being presented. Yet, nothing. Status quo. That external reaction to objective information should tell you something. So far, any reaction, if that has actually been any at all, is wholly underwhelming. Either you don't grasp the full scale implication of not being able to be convincing or you are regurgitating the same old. Did you know that persistant hypochondriacs frequently switch doctors? Do you know why they do? It isn't "my" evolution so there is no need to rebutt. However, I am easily rebutting your contention that you can possibly "know" that the Bible is "true." It is quite easy and has been successfully used since, well, Martin Luther. The only thing I see you defending is your form of spiritual hypochondria, but you are neither convincing of your defence of it or the articles of your interest. This, I believe, is due to the nature of the information you present, the epistemological argument. You've convinced yourself which is the limit of your ability. I have given you food for thought, but all you can focus on is some imaginary attack on your hypochondria, thus you need to defend it's validity at the expense of any possible insight available to you. It appears to me you have far more room for fear than room for faith. No, not at all. Even the skeptical followers of Jesus Christ asked for proof of his assertions and, as the story goes, he gave it to them. And he didn't have to rely on Roman soothsayers to do it. In that regard, despite your assertion that you do, you are not much of a "follower" of Jesus Christ since you are unwilling to even walk the walk. The New Atheist is a person who pretends they are a true follower, like a hypochondriac who pretends they have an illness. Other than a methods to get attention in social groups, it is essentially meaningless. No, hypochondria was a phenomenon known long before Freud or Dr. Phil. You should know this already.

Would you?

No, I have already provided you with a link. Did you bother to read it? No? It isn't a "debate." If you would take the time to get to know what the CHRC actually does, you will see that they act on legal "complaints" of violations of the Canadian Human Rights Act. I have already provided you with a link to a specific part of the CHRC FAQ explaining they do not supply lawyers. Any "legal services" that they do supply, is in accordance with any other legal complaint alleged against someone in practically every other jurisdiction. You don't think the police supply "legal" advice to complainants and victims of crime? How about "hearsay" evidence? Do you not think the police investigate on hearsay evidence and the Crown will lay charges based upon it? I am not asking you to mind read, but simply read would be sufficient.

Yeah I can understand your concern especially since he is likely going to turn Queens Park into a grow-op. Then again, having him make key decisions while smoking pot might be better than some politicians making decisions like they were smoking crack.

Not quite. He knows wines pretty good.

No, because the argument is about your claim to "know" that the Bible is "true." It is an epistemological argument based on the premise that you are assigning your internal perceptions as objectively, or externally, true. It doesn't matter so much what you think about the Bible as being true, but your ability to present internal information - on any subject - in an objective frame of reference that is coherent externally. This is bound to fail because no one will dispute that the Bible cannot contain facts or some factual data. But stating that the Bible is "true" by citing a few bits and pieces of factual information makes no sense whatsoever. This would be like saying the ocean is actually 5 inches deep by an examination of a few tidal pools here and there. If you want to use "scientific proofs" that the Bible is "true" then I think it incumbent on you to provide enough facts to exceed a statistical threshold of probability. In other words, you would have to show that the Bible consists of a bare minimum of 50% factual information to even be considered. See here is an keen example of your problem. You have formulated that I am a part of some social group ("the rest of you new atheists") when in fact, you have no "true" idea whether I am or not. Instead, you have taken this formulation, which is an internal mental construct of yours, and assigned it as "true" externally. Oh but it does, I have just proven it in the previous statement. One of the mopst vexing problems of hypochondria is that hypochondriacs are the first to admit they are not hypochondriacs. And until they get honest enough to be able to take a look at themselves in an external, objective way, they are stuck in that self-fulfilling, looping, mental construct. In a larger sense, this is a similar internal mechanism of circular reference that afflicts plenty of other types of mentally ill people, most notably schizophrenics.

Yes, because as everyone knows, the clerk is listening for your accent when you swipe your credit card. Not to mention that plenty of French Canadians have English last names and vice versa. I know a few Leblancs that can't speak a lick of French.

Or ours, where we are guilty of the same thing. And, in some cases, worse things. Looks like we're all fuct, as a race I mean. Damn! Are you talking about dogs or Mike Vick? Oh, but wait. He served his time...

Just a few of them, otherwise it's business as usual. Yep: if you were that old man... but you're not, so you are using your own fear-based perspective to paint the world. Again. The state stepped in to protect people and dealt with complaints as best they could under the circumstances and this included the bigoted losers who only showed up or complained to cause trouble. Gary McHale, et al. If a few of that group got punched out, oh well. Riiiiight. Now the folktales substitute as truth. Wonder where we've seen this sort of thing happen before. LOFL! Fish, meet barrel. IF the situation were, as you hysterically claim it was, then it seems that the "citizens" were indeed put "in a position of having vigilantism as their only option." But obviously they weren't so it wasn't as bad as you claim. Pure hyperbolic Bill. No he didn't, yes they can and they still do. Most of the townfolk of Caledonia have a clue and it's business as usual for most of them, including the police who continue to patrol and respond to calls. No he didn't. They achieved their objective through negotiations spurred on by the protest. Nope. No they won't. Most people have learned and moved on. Even the old Indian women who manned the barricades. I wish our old women would move on too.

And since all this anti-white is because of whites in the first place ,and likely their white guilt, then I think whitey is severely depressed and suicidal. White suicide is a code word for anti-white = self-genocide. Free meds for the suicidal whites lest they commit self-genocide!

So can I: sheer stupidity. added in edit: I must say, when I read your posts, I hear them in the same vocalization as Milhouse Van Houten. Just thought I would add this for others that might read your posts and hear the same sort of inflections. It's hilarious!

Backyard for some racoon. Bring your shovel!

What's that Jack? Aren't the "individuals" in our society "who barely qualify to be called human" representative of our society too? How is it that we - as a society - aren't known by the worse of us? Are you referring to the treatment of women here in the West? You know, the ones that are beaten, raped, and killed on a daily basis because they dared to be a woman? Surely you read the news. No? Here is a real beaut from yesterday by way of example: Man sexually assaults woman while she held baby Islam and Dogs It's a different culture. Big fucking deal. Go eat a cow and see how many Hindis get all upset about it. Riiiight. Tell us how you really feel Jack, everyone would like to know. LOFL! German shepherd that can tear your face off before you knew she even jumped. But she is the really the cutest thing, very gentle and very, very smart! But her and I both know she is a dog and nothing more. And I treat her like a dog too. However if you are into anthropomorphism that's your problem. Good luck with that, bro...

This isn't like your Old Country Saipan.

That is not required. Here try this. Then re-read bubble-boy's statement. Note that this thread refers to a specific organization and not "HRCs" and even if it did, he is still somewhat way off the mark.

Here's two takes, from the Sun in Feb and from the Torontoist this week: Ford's transit plan big, bold and risky: Editorial Rob Ford's Subway Derailing Fast So... where are the private sector investors? Or does the province have to fork over $650 million first? Well, Mayor Ford did ask for a couple of million to do a business plan...

But it still beats the human "rights" in the Old Country, right Saipan?

And the moronic will make sweeping generalizations about the utility of a system based on the exceptions to the rule.

A grand, sweeping sentiment that is neither reflective nor supportive of reality.

Yes, he should have seen it coming. Cohn: Ford digs himself into a subway hole

Yes, I want private money invested in transit, but not dependent on government having to pull their teat out first. Doesn't that make sense to you?

Sure it is, but re-inventing meanings for words (or worse, twisting them) to suit one's purpose leaves things a titch more ambiguous in my mind. Besides, what's the big deal about being associated with a religion if that is where your philosophy comes from? Exactly. So where do you derive the meanings for 'inflammable' and 'flammable?' Sure there is. But you would be hard pressed to avoid the religious argument - or implication of religion - when you explain your interpretation of any of those core philosophical tenets. Not to mention the historicity of any give word, phrase or passage and how those have been modified over time through translation, etc. The history of the Bible is a very central piece to the religion.

Well it is nice to see the private sector is willing to jump on to the taxpayer teat as well. Where's the outrage?

God Bill, you are turning into the Markuze of Caledonia.

You see betsy, here's the problem: It is very easy to "know" something to be "true" and sincerely prove it to oneself. Hypochondriacs are a good example of that sort of mental operation. The difficulty is in proving it to others - on external grounds, not your internal grounds. This is why hypochondriacs generally fail to convince their doctors of their various false illnesses and conditions, but are able to have the true illneses diagnosed and treated when they arise. Between the hypochondriac and doctor exists an external, agreed upon, frame of reference to discuss 'the thing' they are both interested in, otherwise known as an 'object.' The hypochondriac agrees to the object-ivity of this frame of reference because that is the only way the doctor will agree to an examination. So are you saying you have proved that the Bible is objectively true? And, if so, is it objectively true in a literal sense, a symbolic sense or a mixture of the two? (and, if a mixture, how does one determine what is literal and what is symbolic?)