101. If God Is Dead, Who Gets His House?

Comment #165769 by SharonMcT on April 22, 2008 at 9:23 am

Bonzai:

Fek sakes, man, it's a point to consider, is all I'm saying. :)

I don't have time to flesh out all the other points for you. Feel free. ;)

102. If God Is Dead, Who Gets His House?

Comment #165761 by SharonMcT on April 22, 2008 at 8:54 am

Quetz:

So slow I'm about to go out and get some exercise. ;)

103. If God Is Dead, Who Gets His House?

Comment #165751 by SharonMcT on April 22, 2008 at 8:28 am

debbyo:

:)
Not disagreeing. I was thinking more about those that crave the community aspect so much that it draws them off the couch to the bone hard pew.

104. If God Is Dead, Who Gets His House?

Comment #165733 by SharonMcT on April 22, 2008 at 7:08 am

Anna:

I was thinking about your comment about your cycling and running groups and I wonder if part of the whole church attraction isn't because it's so much easier.

I mean, other hobbies might require a lot more energy, and being that laziness seems to be epidemic in our cultures, it could be a contributing factor.

Church: it's not just for the lazy of mind, but also for the lazy of body.

105. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165406 by SharonMcT on April 21, 2008 at 12:52 pm

TheTruthID:

What does ID predict? How can it be tested? You can't answer questions with questions.

106. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163725 by SharonMcT on April 18, 2008 at 10:03 pm

Nikolaj:

I never used the word "evil". I especially never said a thing about devils or pure evil. Greed is not necessarily simple.

People may be greedy because they are under the impression that they are serving their own loved ones, for example.

But I think that if anyone is guilty of simplifying an argument, it maybe the people who have mistakenly simplified mine.

107. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163722 by SharonMcT on April 18, 2008 at 9:48 pm

righton:
not at all. Sorry. For Nikolaj

108. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163718 by SharonMcT on April 18, 2008 at 9:31 pm

Nikolaj:

Yes. Clearly I have not thought about this at all. I haven't had the benefit of years of exposure to Ben Stein and his economic agenda. Silly me. I'll leave the comments to you far more intelligent atheists who can understand the complexity of the situation much better than I ever could. ;)

Edited to include intended recipient

109. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163712 by SharonMcT on April 18, 2008 at 8:48 pm

I haven't fallen into any "trap of seeing conspiracies everywhere". Expelled is propaganda.

I'd rather not be naive about people's motivations.

Global Warming Controversy, Cigarettes Cause Cancer Controversy. There was an article about it - "The Art Of Creating Controversy" on this site.

What motivates the creation of these controversies? Money and greed.

110. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163681 by SharonMcT on April 18, 2008 at 7:04 pm

Frankus1122:

I appreciate your efforts here. But what I really think the creationist followers fail to understand is that Ben Stein and his ilk have them right where they want them - dumb and shopping their meager paycheques away at walmart.

He doesn't want them educated properly. It's all about the money. As long as it keeps flowing from the poor to the rich, the leaders of the ID movement will be happy. And these poor undereducated people seem to prefer it that way as well.

111. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163372 by SharonMcT on April 18, 2008 at 8:48 am

Anna:

I tried sending you a PM but it says user not found or some such. I don't really want to discuss this here, but it just won't die.

I agree with your reasoning. As usual, you have some very good points to make and I enjoy how you do it.

As far as RM goes, however, I think in this case, this community is a lover that he may feel spurned him. Getting his own back by cavorting in full view with the one person his lover hates is just his way of trying to get his own back. I don't think it's any more complex than that and has nothing to do with religion or indoctrination persay.

112. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162974 by SharonMcT on April 17, 2008 at 6:29 pm

Goldy:

It's called a shart, as in "I just sharted". ;)

113. Fleabytes

Comment #157582 by SharonMcT on April 9, 2008 at 9:42 am

I've been gone only a few weeks but it feels like years. I've missed you all. Srsly.

And this thread is still here, still growing. Amazing.

It is going to take me weeks to read it all.

Seems like I missed a bit of drama though. I hope everyone made it out alive.

114. Fleabytes

Comment #143452 by SharonMcT on March 14, 2008 at 5:59 am

#143444 by hungarianelephant:

Thank you. As usual, there are people on this site that can explain my thoughts better than I can.

And with that I am off for 3 weeks of holiday bliss. I will raise a glass to all of you, or more likely a few shots of 100% agave tequila. I will miss you all. :)

Edit: spelling ;)

115. Fleabytes

Comment #143450 by SharonMcT on March 14, 2008 at 5:57 am

Sargeist:

I think your concerns are valid. I just don't think that women wait until they are 38 weeks to decide they no longer want a child. I haven't heard of this being an issue. In my country, abortions are legal up to 9 weeks as far as I am aware. I am fine with that.

116. Fleabytes

Comment #143429 by SharonMcT on March 14, 2008 at 5:36 am

Robertson:

Yes, it is just my body. Full stop. You thinking that I should not be able to decide what I will do with it will not change that fact. Again, much as you wish it were not so, the zeitgeist has changed over the last 100 years (has it really only been this recent?). Women are people. We get to decide how to live our lives. People get to make their own choices and live with the consequences. It must drive you crazy that women are actually equal to men, but at least you can still go home tell your wife how to think.

Steve, Sargeist, Bonzai:

I stand by my original statement that education and contraception are the keys. I am also not saying that there is nothing to discuss or think about. I am arguing against the xtian position that they get to decide what is right and wrong about what a person gets to do with their body.

117. Fleabytes

Comment #143239 by SharonMcT on March 13, 2008 at 5:48 pm

_J_

Congrats! Very happy for you. Closer to the time you should let us know where it'll be showing so we can come support it.

118. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #143169 by SharonMcT on March 13, 2008 at 2:59 pm

I wish this would make the news here in Canada. Perhaps more people would see exactly why continuing to support even the most gentle and mild catholicism is wrong and dangerous.

119. Fleabytes

Comment #142976 by SharonMcT on March 13, 2008 at 9:36 am

Paula:

Congrats on inspriring 5000 posts. I have enjoyed this thread immensely and as usual, I have learned much.

I would loVe an RD.net party, but please give lots of advance notice. I'll need to book a flight from Canada. ;)

120. Fleabytes

Comment #142968 by SharonMcT on March 13, 2008 at 9:25 am

Robertson:

Arrggh. A woman has a right to choose what to do with her own body. What on earth is scandalous about that? Women are recognised as people now, no matter what your "good" book says. Sexism is just as wrong as racism. I think most people would prefer that abortions did not occur, but that in no way means that those most people should have the right to tell any person what to do with their own body. Ever. Education and proper contraception are the keys to eliminating abortion, not you and your ilk invoking the supposed wrath of your invisible sky-daddy. This is mY body. This line will never be crossed. You WILL not tell me what I can and cannot do with it.

121. Fleabytes

Comment #142498 by SharonMcT on March 12, 2008 at 3:05 pm

Diacanu:

I've missed you. No tears, but still glad to see a post now and again. ;)

122. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141781 by SharonMcT on March 11, 2008 at 7:41 am

Bloody Hell. No matter how hard I try I can't get past Level 2. I never was very good at games. ;P

I plan on discussing this article with my catholic friends today though. We'll see how many are still speaking to me by tomorrow.

123. Fleabytes

Comment #140645 by SharonMcT on March 8, 2008 at 7:53 am

clodhopper:

Your request for citizenship is in the queue. Do not worry. We will get to it eventually.

Best regards,
Procrasti Nation Immigration Department

124. Fleabytes

Comment #140522 by SharonMcT on March 7, 2008 at 4:15 pm

Comment #140520 by Steve Zara

The piece is stuck in my head now. It has such a great opening.

125. When blasphemy bit the dust

Comment #140495 by SharonMcT on March 7, 2008 at 2:39 pm

Good article on the whole. This part stood out for me:

make sure that he does time in the diabolical house of correction

126. Fleabytes

Comment #140371 by SharonMcT on March 7, 2008 at 8:02 am

Al:

You looked up to me? Glad you now realize your mistake. ;)

About the drinking, well, I like to tell myself that I am a quick learner, so it only took me two tries before I realized that I should pace myself, but more than likely I am just chicken-shit.

127. Fleabytes

Comment #140340 by SharonMcT on March 7, 2008 at 6:56 am

MaxD:

soUtHeRn coMfoRt! Yuck. In my youth I managed to get sick on drink twice. The first time was on tequila. Took me a long time and a lot of effort before I could drink it again, but it was well worth it. The second time was southern comfort. It is so awful that I never bothered to try to drink it again. It will definitely be available in hell. ;)

128. Fleabytes

Comment #139842 by SharonMcT on March 6, 2008 at 2:44 pm

Cartomancer (Comment #139830 or 3787):

How very interesting, even if it's only speculation. I love it when this site gets me looking at things in an entirely new way. I think that is the most addicting thing for me.

129. Fleabytes

Comment #138803 by SharonMcT on March 4, 2008 at 7:45 pm

Brian:

Sorry. I just meant I was interested in how language and the ability to understand abstract concepts evolved. The girl was never fully capable of language like we are. At some point none of our ancestors were capable either. I just need more info to understand how the first baby retained these abilities, kinda thing. It's probably a dumb question, but I obviously need to read a lot more about it and this conversation of yours sparked an interest for me to better understand it.

130. Fleabytes

Comment #138796 by SharonMcT on March 4, 2008 at 7:36 pm

MPhil:

I am probably remembering it incorrectly. "Highly intelligent" is likely an overstatement.

As others have lamented here, so much to read and so little time. ;)

Brian:

Thank you. I will take a look at the link.

Cheers all. And goodnight. ;)

131. Fleabytes

Comment #138787 by SharonMcT on March 4, 2008 at 7:28 pm

Brian:

But how were they achieved by guy #1? I had previously understood the part about use it or lose it.

Lorien:

Wow. There are a few by Pinker. I think I'll start with "The Language Instinct".

132. Fleabytes

Comment #138782 by SharonMcT on March 4, 2008 at 7:22 pm

Lorien:

Thank you. ;)

133. Fleabytes

Comment #138775 by SharonMcT on March 4, 2008 at 7:18 pm

I remember watching a doc about a little girl whose parents kept her locked in a room and never spoke to her. She didn't learn to speak until she was discovered and removed from the home. She was apparently highly intelligent and later learned hundreds of words but could never speak in full sentences or grasp abstract concepts. I have always wondered why this happens.

I haven't come to the point in my self education to be able to address this. Can anyone help me with this? There is kind of a chicken v egg thing here for me. Can anyone suggest some reading that might help me understand how our ability for language developed? My list of reading is already long, but this topic fascinates me.

134. Fleabytes

Comment #137811 by SharonMcT on March 3, 2008 at 1:50 pm

sO glad Benway is back.

135. Fleabytes

Comment #137759 by SharonMcT on March 3, 2008 at 12:49 pm

Annabanana:

Too funny. Thank you for saying what I was thinking. ;)

136. Fleabytes

Comment #137754 by SharonMcT on March 3, 2008 at 12:44 pm

kaiserkriss & al:

Edmonton (where I am from), a mere 300 kilometers away from Calgary, is only slightly smaller, with a metro population of 1,034,945.

Way bigger than Madison, where Richard will speak in the near future, whose population is a mere 208,054.

Please come to Alberta, Richard. It's Canada's bible belt.

137. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #137048 by SharonMcT on March 2, 2008 at 8:20 am

AtheistJon:

Maybe we all just need some diplomacy skills on this site.

138. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #137041 by SharonMcT on March 2, 2008 at 8:03 am

AtheistJon:

I think if you go back to the beginning of the comments and look at the comments where I asked some questions of al rawandi, there was a slightly more reasonable discussion about differing views. The discussion ended before I would have liked but it was more than civil, I thought.

Before I post, I always read all the comments. I try not to repeat what someone else has said, but if I want to question someone about views that may be different from my own, I think I am free to do so.

Many of my ideas have evolved and changed over time and I don't think that I have come to a final conclusion on anything. Can you point out a comment I made on this thread where I came off as being a fascist?

I don't remember even saying that I thought gun ownership was always wrong, only that I would prefer to live without the need for them. I was fully willing to enter into a discussion of how society could move towards that, not how we could eliminate gun ownership. I wanted to discuss why a person feels the need for a gun for protection.

139. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #137030 by SharonMcT on March 2, 2008 at 7:09 am

I think we can all agree to disagree, but it is the vitriol that I think is telling. A gentle rebuke is met with unbelievable venom. Why would someone react that way to someone who does little more than disagree? Ridiculing an idea is something I think is normal and helpful. When someone feels the need to ignore the idea and just attack the person instead, they have sunk to a level that is no longer rational. We all do it, but most people recognise it as a failure, admit it, and move on.

140. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #136460 by SharonMcT on March 1, 2008 at 9:03 am

scooter:

There may be a time when you have some good points to make (it IS possible, however unlikely). If no one listens because you are a complete ass, then there can be no dialogue and no learning.

141. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #136447 by SharonMcT on March 1, 2008 at 8:52 am

Carto:

No kidding.

I think freedom means being able to walk around anywhere in the world without having to worry about being accosted. The freedom to lock ourselves up behind walls and hide behind guns to keep the "riffraff" at bay doesn't sound like freedom to me.

142. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #136416 by SharonMcT on March 1, 2008 at 5:59 am

No worries. I am not bothered in the slightest by an insult from scooter. In fact, I might even consider it a badge of honour.

143. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #136415 by SharonMcT on March 1, 2008 at 5:57 am

scooter:

Kind of an emotional response from you. *smiles* How predictable.

144. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #136408 by SharonMcT on March 1, 2008 at 5:24 am

scooter:

I can see why you need so much self-protection.

145. Fleabytes

Comment #136237 by SharonMcT on February 29, 2008 at 2:55 pm

Steve:

Totally. ;)

146. Fleabytes

Comment #136216 by SharonMcT on February 29, 2008 at 2:28 pm

epeeist:

Nice. You deserve a good rest and relax. I've enjoyed your posts however, so do come back soon.

147. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #136086 by SharonMcT on February 29, 2008 at 1:05 pm

my trip to oxford is definitely off then...

148. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #136009 by SharonMcT on February 29, 2008 at 12:15 pm

Cartomancer:

Sorry, I can't see either. You are totally hot, and if I thought I had a chance, I'd be stalking your haunts already.

;)

149. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #135995 by SharonMcT on February 29, 2008 at 12:06 pm

Al:

I am satified. You came off all black and white to me at first, but you have nuanced your point well enough. ;)

I agree that poverty is a key issue.

I guess I just hope that Americans are working towards a society where they no longer need to protect themselves so rigourously from each other. I accept that it is difficult for me to understand this argument even though I live next-door to you and our societies seem so similar in so many ways.

I don't want to veer off topic, but I would be interested in knowing what you think might contribute to helping the poverty situation in the US. I think universal healthcare has helped in other societies, including my own. Thoughts?

150. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #135870 by SharonMcT on February 29, 2008 at 10:06 am

Al:

I'm very much enjoying your posts on the Fleabytes thread, as I do most of the stuff you write on a variety of topics. But I do have to ask a few questions here, if you don't mind.

How do you compare cars to guns? What other purpose does one have for a gun other than to shoot or threaten to shoot? I have another purpose for a car other than to use it as a weapon. I cannot see how you can compare the value of these 2 items.

I don't necessarily disagree that people can be allowed to own guns, but there are so many problems that come along with this. Guns can kill people too quickly and efficiently, IMO. And I do realize that murder will still occur without guns. I don't think guns cause violence.

If a person stabs another or beats them, it can take a lot more time and effort to actually kill them. During this time, the potential murderer has some time to re-evaluate things and perhaps not kill the other person. A person has to make a much bigger commitment to actually kill someone by a method other than a gun. I think this time can be valuable, especially to the person being stabbed or beaten.

I much prefer living in a society that doesn't see the need for a gun in every house. My chance of dying by accidental or purposeful discharge of a firearm must be greatly reduced if there are fewer firearms, surely? I know if there are fewer cars on the streets, my chance of dying by car is lower. I know the value of cars, but what significant value do guns have to my life again?

Edit:

Cartomancer beat to everything I wanted to say and said it in a much better fashion as well, so feel free to ignore this post. ;)