Raven

LMAO

Oh dear, just the kind of think I think about every day I would say don't get him circumcised. I don't know about the hygiene angle, but I do know that there is no health reason for circumcision; the process exists mainly as a means to generate hospital profits and for such individuals who find it necessary for religious reasons. It does seam a rather unpleasant trauma to inflict on the child though as I don't believe they use any form of anesthesia, and it's not unheard of for them to goof rather badly and cause permanent injury (or in some cases burn off a section).

Yes Jag, jump right in, after all that's what I did.

Um... isn't Diplomacy fleet offensive and Patrol fleet defensive?

Now that is just plain creepy.

Well Kiran, I think it's demonstrable that the bible (especially the old testament) is nothing I would call a remotely accurate document. I don't means simply from the perspective that I'm an atheist, but rather that it is unlikely that any story could survive everything it went though with anything but the core truth intact (if that), and in the process it would be distended way out of proportion. This leads me to wonder how you can believe what can so easily be shown as misinformation? Now, as for DraconisRex, I'm a little curious about your explanation of Atlantis (which, by the way, is an interesting bit of speculation, but not one I'm willing to accept at this point). What were you trying to get at with it? I'm not aware of any solid evidence that suggests the existence of Atlantis, and therefore I would be a little more careful using Atlantis as an explanation for the unknown. It's very easy to wave a magic want, say Atlantis, and have an explanation, but that's not the best idea. The problem, however, is that this leads to links that may very easily be inaccurate, and results in assumptions of the highest order. By joining Atlantis and Egypt, for example, you explain the battery and the facing of the pyramids, but you also necessitate the existence of Atlantis. Now, my last question for this morning is why do you believe in god? You have demonstrably proven that the bible (considered by most to be an infallible document) is riddled with inaccuracies to the point it's nearly worthless (and certainly not to be trusted at face value). The bible, however, is the only real evidence that suggests god exists (all other evidence that is used is proving that the bible is indeed accurate on one or two points, on the logic that it must then be accurate on the rest of the points). It, along with the lovely, generous, wise, and holy Christian church(s) are all that exist to claim the Christian religion to be true (or at least that there take on it is the right one), and I don't think that the church (any of them) is a body I would want to trust (after all, look at there idea of science).

I don't know enough about it to have an opinion, so I shan't pretend to.

Well darling, it's simply lovely to be able to debate religion with someone who doesn't get hostile about it, thank you. So as I understand it the old testament is based of a series of loosely gathered documents which have minimal demonstrable basis in fact, were passed on for a considerable amount of time as oral traditions which were no doubt distended till they only vaguely resembled whatever original event (if indeed there was an event) took place. And to make this worse they were use (by the person who had them transcribed to paper no less) as a means of controlling a population through difficult times, and then later edited, censored, and augmented by a series of councils whose purpose was most certainly not to assemble accurate information. My apologies, but I'm a skeptic. There may have been a flood, it may have lasted a while (even 40 days and 40 nights), and some people and animals might even have survived in a boat (though I doubt they found themselves stranded on any mountain, there is only so much water on earth after all), and all of this could have happened naturally. Adam and Eve are, if you'll pardon me saying, a lot like every other creation myth I've heard. When it all comes down to it, everything could easily be the product of exaggeration (which we have to assume is human nature for such events) misunderstandings of natural phenomena (no doubt exaggerated after the first couple of repetitions) and plan old fashioned fabrication (for which there was plenty of motive). And then add translational problems, and people interpreting it to mean whatever pleases them (and often whatever remains viable with current scientific knowledge), and you get a soup of who knows what. Religion is a means by which a primitive (and please pardon the term, I'm not at all suggesting you're primitive) can understand (or at least pretend to understand) to world around them and to have some belief that they can influence events (generally by piety and praying and such not). It is also a means by which people assure themselves they will have justice, life eternal (this is a big one), and affirmation of there ideals. People didn't question things then the way they question things now (or at least some of us question things now, my mother comes to mind as an example to the contrary, and her sister is worse still) and were therefore much more subject to manipulations through that type of myth. There is neither need for a god to explain religion, nor indeed anything besides primitive minds trying to come to grasp with the world around them and events they could neither understand, predict, nor control. I believe there is a Sherlock Holmes quote that reminds us that the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one. quote: The Creationists have the same thinking about the scientists. In my thinking, you can't have science without religion, and you can't have religion without science. But, to coin a phrase, which came first: creation or evolution? Perhaps so, but science is fully justified in changing as necessary to keep up with research and evidence and such not, it's what science is after all. Scientists don't claim a single doctrine to be accurate and then twist it around to there views (or to fit available facts) but rather they form there views from what facts are available. quote: About your recipe.... Neither religion or politics are adaptable to the other ÔÇô they contradict each other, since politics says to lie, cheat, and win, and religion says tell the truth, be humble, and let man win. And that, darling, is because religion is a form of social control, effective because it promises inescapable justice and reward to those who are willing to believe. quote: A better volatile mixture would be one good scientist, and a Southern Baptist preacher, each having to prove their side to a council.... The war is on! Well daring, I wasn't so much saying that religion and politics were incompatible as they were both subjects most everyone has a strong opinion about.

Oh yes, I forgot about that. Another thing I simply adore about religion is that as soon as an idea becomes inconvenient it's ignored, interpreted to mean something else entirely, or is taken symbolically rather then literally. Reminds me a lot of our constitution actually... (Recipe for volatile discussion: mix religion and politics, shake well, and stand back)

LAMAO That's rich.

Well, I've had XP Pro as long as I've had this computer (almost a year now) and it works swimmingly, it's a vast improvement over NT and 98 which I have used before (I don't believe I've ever seen 2k). It's extremely stable compared to other operating systems I've used, it almost never crashes (when it does it's usually because I've left it running for a week or so). Games, especially older games, often will not work, but that is less of a problem now then it was a year ago when I got it.

And I'm still here sharpening my diplomatic skills (oh wait, that's sharpening my nails, sorry).

This sounds seriously cool. I'm the kind of person who always gets disgusted about how utterly unrealistic some parts of space opera are (or is that most parts...), but this sounds like a change for the better. I might actually have to get a TV again.

My question, then, is knowing as much as you do about the origins of Christianity can you except it as anything more then an artifact of a leader who wanted to bring some faith to his people and, eventually, a religious text that has been added to multiple times. You have to know as well as I do that there would be no need of divine power to convince people that kind of stuff was true, nor any real need to write down anything that even resembled fact in more then the most distorted way. It's like that lovely article that someone (SC I believe) pointed us too in the aliens thread where the guy was discounting the UFO crash in Roswell. All you need is a few people willing to exaggerate, a few more willing to lie outright, and a climate in which those type of lies will be accepted as the truth.

So vampires are rubbish, as, no doubt, are diablarists, demons, and similar creatures that traditionally had a place in the Christian mythos. On the other hand, you believe in such events such as the sun stopping in the sky, people living for hundreds of years, and similar nonse... I mean absolutely factual information that can be derived from an oral history of highly reliable children's tails (and not just any book of children's tails, but one which disdained the use of vowels no less). I'm sorry, I'm a skeptic, but there is more reason to believe in vampires then a series of legendary events that lack even the paltry evidence that suggests the existence of modern supernatural manifestations. And even if some of these stories have a basis in fact (as most myths do, I admit, though often only the very barest link to the real event) how accurately do you think they were retold, and how many were added or left out by creative storytellers trying to please there audience? Such information is worse then hearsay.

I don't know, could a ship of the line shoot down a modern fighter plane? Didn't think so.

I'm not going to argue aliens, UFOs, and Bifeld-Brown ships (and that's NOT the same as antigravity by the way), that's not my thing anyway. I will say that I don't believe in alien visitations the same reason that I don't believe in ghosts or similar nonsense. There is no good reason to believe and too many alternate explanations. However, I will disagree with this flawed belief that aliens will somehow coincide with our idea of an advanced society (actually, I should say your idea of an advanced society, it's not mine). First of all, aliens are ALIEN, completely and totally inhuman. Before you start screaming ort clouds and panspermia consider that seeding of that sort is with only the most basic sort of life, and whatever develops from it on other worlds is likely to be vastly different then us. Now, assuming that aliens are even remotely comprehensible (which I'm not sure if it would be the case, but it's rather hard to discuss anything that isn't comprehensible, so were stuck with that assumption) we have to realize that they came from the same evolutionary process as we did, it just happened elsewhere (religious rambling to the side). Consider, if you will, how many species are peaceful on earth, and you will find it tends to be dumb herbivores, and not even them entirely. This suggests that there is an evolutionary reason for war: it is the ultimate means by which the fit may be separated from the unfit, and this in turn suggests that violence would be an inherent aspect of any species psychological makeup. Now, Kiran tells us that a heterogeneous alien society would destroy itself before it managed interstellar travel. Right. We all believe you Kiran. It seams more likely that, while they would indeed have WMDs, they could go without using them just as easily as we do. We have survived for the last 50 or so years with the existence of nuclear weapons and the threat of WW3, but we have been very politically heterogeneous without blowing ourselves up. This could easily last the next 100 years (especially with all the different defense systems people are trying to come up with). How long will it take for our race to have a secure extraterrestrial habitat? How long before we're colonizing mars (either terraforming or domes)? Once a species has a sufficiently spread out population that is independent of its homeworld the thread of WMDs is reduced radically. Now, it may be the case that aliens really are peaceful tree-hugging, flower-smelling, hick-probing pansies, but it seams like something of a stretch to assume that with the overwhelming lack of information.

Ok, the article was clearly leftist propaganda, but it also had a very good point. The practice of strong arming schools (and can you come up with a better term for it?) into giving out lists of student names is just plain low. This article uses the term brainwash way too many times, but students shouldn't have unrestricted exposure to military propaganda like that. Don't take this wrong, I have nothing wrong with recruiters or people joining the military, but they should do so with there eyes open, not clouded by spiffy looking brochures are promises of college money.

Well, what can I say, there are a couple on every sizeable board with the notable exception of this one. I wish your sister luck and hope she comes back in good health (not to mention timeliness).

What a surprise

Well I think this is a lovely idea.

Well Lotharr, I agree that poverty stricken areas do indeed have higher crime rates, which can only lead me to imagine that these areas need to increase the average income per capita. Now, the best way to do this is to cultivate businesses. The best way to allow businesses to develop (and move in) is to reduce taxes and (especially in this case) crime. Now, it's highly demonstrable that gun rights reduce crime, and therefore the logical thing to do would be to pass shall-issue laws and reduce government spending (and thus taxes). Oh, and Jaguar, that's a delightful article you've found there, it's always nice to hear something positive from our African American citizens.

Well said Jaguar!

Well yea, let's look at this for a moment. Every major war, as in every one that wasn't short. Iraq will not be able to put up that kind of opposition, not in a million years.

I agree very nice suggestion.