the_way_of_the_turtle

If theirs is not a religion but a "personal relationship with God", why aren't they in the Family and Relationships section?

...if the Eagle is the national symbol of the US, but the Cardinal is the state bird (of the state in which I reside), and I have no money on the game, who should I root for?

I haven't been able to connect to it most of this week...anyone with any info on why?

I just finished listening to the most recent Point of Inquiry podcast (with D.J. Grothe), and he was interviewing Solomon Schimmel about his new book (The Tenacity of Unreasonable Beliefs: Fundamentalism and the Fear of Truth). They brought up a decent question that I don't think the author answered very well. First, a little background (bear with it, please...)

I think the majority of (mature) responders here will realize that both those of faith and non-faith fall along a spectrum of tenacity: there are moderates near the middle, liberals nearer one end, and fundamentalists nearer the other end. Should the moderates of, say, Christianity, challenge those fundamentalist Christians when their arguments or actions are illogical (for example, their inherent mistrust of scientists regarding evolution), hypocritical (trying to use science to prove the supernatural), or anti-social (bombing of abortion clinics, the Mormons buying the yes vote on prop. 8)? (By the way, I only use Christianity as an example since that is what I am most familiar with; Jewish and Muslim commenters are more than welcome.) Do the moderates, when they don't speak up or challenge those fundamentalists, actually make the problems worse by silently allowing the practices to go on (as Sam Harris has pointed out)? What are your views/opinions?

Why do you resist? What have you got to lose? If you aren't a zombie, you have only death to look forward to. If you become a zombie, you have everlasting death...really, what have you got to lose?

that Lion of Judah finally got out of his pen at the Focus on the Family headquarters in Colorado Springs?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,382201,00.html

Do you think Dr. Dobson let him out to play and lost track of him, or do you think Lion was just hungry and smelled an atheist in the area?

I don't get it (well, I do, but I want some opinions).

US citizens pay less than almost everyone else in the world for a gallon of gas (and about half of what Europe pays per gallon.

We have a bigger carbon footprint than just about every country that isn't named China (and a few other developing countries).

It just seems to me to be a bit on the superficial side to complain about gas prices but not about the value of the dollar or the "war" in Iraq (or wherever the hell GWB wants to go this week) or education or health care.

I understand that some people make their living using huge amounts of gasoline, but won't higher gas prices drive us (eventually, probably kicking and screaming) to technology that is not only cheaper and more efficient but better for the environment?

Do the laws of a society stem from the social mores of that group, or do the mores of the group tend to drift toward the laws enacted?

Looking for some thoughtful answers...

...completely shut down in the week leading up to 12/21/2012, due to the increasing number of posts about it? I can only imagine, with the number of posts about the end of the Mayan calendar now, what the site will look like in 4 years...

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/commentary/11576978/

http://maryland-politics.blogspot.com/2008/02/what...

http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm?aid=3577

Is this a legitimate beef that conservative Christians have with the transgender anti-discrimination law (in Maryland), or more scare tactics and misinformation? (Or something else, obviously, which you are more than welcome to share.)

(For those of you who don't follow links...) "...the bill’s purpose was to “prohibit discrimination in housing, employment, public accommodations, cable television service and taxicab service on the basis of gender identity.” Its primary effect was to add “gender identity” as a protected class from discrimination along with age, race, religion, color, sex, sexual orientation, handicap, national origin or marital status under County Code Chapter 27."

...is more fundamentally incorrect, in your opinion: naturalism or supernaturalism? Why do you think so?

...is more fundamentally incorrect, in your opinion: naturalism or supernaturalism? Why do you think so?

I'm asking in the philosophy section, too, but the question kind of cuts to the heart of the religion/atheism debate, doesn't it...

If God created the mind and human consciousness, wouldn't the most influential nations of the world be the most religious?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/wtwtgod/3490...

Of course, we have the Vatican (not included in the poll), which exerts a high degree of influence around the world (with Catholics), but how many of these countries are world leaders in social and domestic policy? Is it just me, or shouldn't there be a connection between faith and social policies if my first statement were true?

Can anyone give me (or direct me to) a reliable list of PS2 games that will be/are compatable with PS3? I've heard that all will be compatable with the 80 gig, that about 3/4 will be, and that none will be.

Would the itialian word for celiac disease be acilico? I have an Italian foreign exchange student in my biology class, and she asked me about a disease in which people couldn't digest carbs like in certain breads and pasta. She only knew the Italian name (acilico). I told her I wasn't aware of any disease in which a person couldn't digest carbs, but I knew there was one (celiac disease) in which people couldn't digest gluten (which is in a lot of the carbs she mentioned), but I couldn't remember the name of the disorder until she left class. Anyway, it's been a while since my Latin, so I was hoping to get some help from a bi-lingual health professional. Are these two things (acilico and celiac) the same? All help is appreciated.

Would the itialian word for celiac disease be acilico? I have an Italian foreign exchange student in my biology class, and she asked me about a disease in which people couldn't digest carbs like in certain breads and pasta. She only knew the Italian name (acilico). I told her I wasn't aware of any disease in which a person couldn't digest carbs, but I knew there was one (celiac disease) in which people couldn't digest gluten (which is in a lot of the carbs she mentioned), but I couldn't remember the name of the disorder until she left class. Anyway, it's been a while since my Latin, so I was hoping to get some help from a bi-lingual health professional. Are these two things (acilico and celiac) the same? All help is appreciated.

That I watch Eli Manning get sacked to end a drive, then the first commercial that comes on is Eli Manning ... passing a ball ... with a voice over saying "Eli Manning is unstopable, just like his Citizens' Eco-Drive watch" ... Sorry, couldn't stop laughing.

just finished watching a segment on the O'Reilly Factor (don't hold it against me) with Bill and Ben Stein (yes, that Ben Stein) discussing Stein's new movie about how intelligent design proponents are being persecuted. Bill kept asking the completely ignorant questions (Why isn't it okay to just mention intelligent design in Kansas biology classrooms, for just one example), and Stein kept spouting about how evolution was a wonderful theory for the mid-1800's and how brilliant of a guy Darwin was but his theory is filled with holes. 2 questions: 1) Is there any research being done to support ID, or predictive power of the "theory", or any scientific basis for it (I'm pretty sure I know the answer to this)? and 2) Is this movie on anyone's "must see" list (the movie is called "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed")?

Bear with me for a minute, if you will...

Creationists and fundamentalists, I've heard some of you claim that many non-believers base their misconceived ideas of and non-belief in Christianity on the fringe or whacko "Christians" (i.e., Ku Klux Klan, child molesting bishops and priests, Ken Haggard more recently, I could go on...). I think most of you would agree that these people represent a minority of those who call themselves Christians.

Why, then, would you assume the small minority of scientists (and even smaller minority of biologists) that don't believe in evolution actually better represent the biological point of view of evolution than the other 95-98% of the rest of scientists? Aren't you falling into the same trap that you are claiming we (atheists, agnostics, pagans) fall into when we criticize your religion? Aren't we just as justified when we tell you not to listen to these fringe "scientists" such as Michael Behe and Ken Ham?

665 questions. Should I stop now and get a new account? I'm afraid of what might happen if I answer another...