I think you're reading that wrong. Basically, they're saying that any one of those options could have been used as opposed to the tax cuts (take for example, the Pell grants--$5,500 x 43.1 million = $2.37 billion).

However, it is astonishing to see what could have been done with wasted money. Military spending alone could feed, house and provide healthcare for every citizen in the country and then some.

I like wux's answer, but here's an interesting idea ...

Let's answer that question with the "multiverse". Assuming there is a God, He has a plan and everything is absolute, then alternate realities can play a part. If every decision humans make creates another universe in which a different choice was taken, then praying can indeed have been factored in and can make a difference because there is an alternate reality where either God did not grant the wishes of the one praying or the one praying did not ask.

I know what I'm talking about.



God has never spoken to me or anyone I know or have ever known. If God exists, I don't believe there'd be doubt in ANYone's mind. Aside from that, Christianty is a big religion because of the crusades ... a time when government sanctioned death squads slaughtered anyone who did not believe and would not convert to Christianity. Whatever the case, most Christians I know "serve" out of fear of going to Hell.



Debating. What we're doing is debating ... you're taking this way too personally. We're apparently "messing" with the Christian God, noted. Telling anyone they're going to Hell for disbelief and to repent is not "going out of your way to be nice". As for "undermining" ... that's another example of what religious people have done for thousands of years with missionaries, nevermind the wholesale slaughter of indigenous peoples.



You're REALLY going out of your way to be nice, how civil. No one's told you to keep silent. You preach tolerance of your religion yet in this very same paragraph you're claiming anyone who believes differently than you is a disciple of Satan and therefore evil. The "little g" remark is characteristic of your own petty intolerance and belittling of every other belief in the world. On the other hand, I always capitalize God. Who's being intolerant?

I've read the Bible, yes ... you're not representing Jesus very well though I do find correlations between your behavior and the religion as a whole. Kudos.



Prove it.



Evolution.



"Head knowledge" is what gave us medicine ... the ability to keep people alive longer and far more healthily than ever before and protection from many diseases. Prior to the 1800s, life expectancy in most places were around the age of 40 at best. "Head knowledge" is the reason we can communicate long distances with our loved ones and gave you the computer you're using to rant to the rest of us here. It gave us running water and water purification, sewers and sewage treatment, boats, airplanes, space shuttles, cell phones, refridgeration, stoves, air conditioning ...

You think "head knowledge" ruins people? Why aren't you Amish?

I really don't feel like quoting more. You've attacked more people and religions in just one of your posts than anyone else here has on this board.

Calm down. This is a debate, not the pulpit.

Been separated for a year now and the divorce was finalized just last week. Throughout the process I lost everything I've had or known for the past decade. Its sucked, a lot.

For me, a year hasn't done anything at all to stifle my irritation and yes, hatred ... but only in regard to her. This is primarily because she continues to lie about everything and she doesn't believe me when I tell her I know when she's dishonest (we have two kids together, so I have to continue dealing with her). Otherwise, I've come to terms with my situation and am looking forward to what the future holds for me.

My advice, the biggest thing is to keep busy. Immerse yourself in something ... work, school, projects, etc. It will allow you to pace your thoughts, work out frustrations in a healthy manner and give you time to adjust to the change of atmosphere in your life ... otherwise you may dwell, seethe ...

Fun stuff. Good luck, man.

Hmm, I've lots of stories about the ex ... one that particularly comes to mind is how she at one time complained how I was always brutally honest and would never say "everything's going to be ok" to comfort her and make her feel better about everything.

A couple years later (and one of her examples of why we were splitting ... nevermind her infidelity), she said that when I was saying "everything's going to be ok" and trying to comfort her, suddenly I was belittling her and disregarding her feelings.

Huh ... try to please some people ...

Astronauts. ;) Most of 'em came back too.

Yeah, that's what I said ... :)

Funny, this. For all the Bible-thumpers ... how many of you have read ALL the gospels/books? Nevermind the Old and New Testaments, King James' and all that ...

What about the books that Emperor Constantine's little troupe voted as "apocryphal" and disregarded? What about the vote on the decision whether Jesus should be represented as a divine figure (the son of God) or a mortal (who had married Mary Magdalen)? What about the Gospel of Mary Magdalen, herself? Or how about the Gospel of Judas?

Does it not make you feel weird knowing that what you believe today and tout as God's True Word first took form through the hands of someone who was not a believer? And later, King James tossed out some stuff he didn't quite care for either ...

Aaaaaaaaaanyway, back to the topic.

As far as the most recent date for the end of the world is concerned ... it raises attendance at church and therefore, revenue (donations) collected by the churches--especially that owned by the claimant. Anyone who claims to know anything about the future is either crazy, is looking to collect something (usually money) or (as in the case of the Bible) can make generalized predictions based upon knowledge of human behavior ... knowledge easily attained by watching just two people on ... oh, say, any given hour on CNN. War! Famine! Death! Recession! Depression! Earthquake! Pitbull! :D

Its been a while since I've read up on and watched documentaries featuring the Mayan calendar and all that, so I'm a bit rusty, but there's always something that occurs to me when the discussion comes up and the question is this:

"How long do you really expect to write a calendar for?"

Think about it. The Mayan calendar ends on December 21, 2012. We are in the dawn of the Age of Aquarius (coming from the Age of Pisces where we were over the past 2100-ish years). Read up on astrological ages. It has nothing to do with life on Earth at all, merely the position of stars that can be viewed from the surface of the planet. So if you look at it logically ...

The Mayans, forging a calendar with mathematical precision from whatever date they began and on into the years to come eventually reach the end of an age, yawn, stretch, lean back and think, "you know ... this is really all we need for now. We'll never see most of this ourselves, so why not let our descendants tackle the next age" ... only to be practically wiped out by the Spaniards soon after.

Can't that be all it was? No mysticism, no foreknowledge of some fiery cataclysm, no deity proclaiming the end of all life, or at least all life as we know it ... just a timely pause in calculation since going any further with the task was clearly irrelevant at the time. They left it to their progeny to pick up later, whenever it would be applicable.

Why is there a need to attach some sort of doom to a future date? Is there a need? Really? OMG! My calendar ends on December 31st! There must be some kind of cataclysm coming! What am I going to d--oh wait, here's next year's calendar. Whew!

Cheers.

I agree with the first part, though the second begs me to ponder: "Has there ever been a God(s) that was not believed to be the creator of everything?" Answer: I don't know.

My understanding regarding theism vs. deism:

Monotheism is based on the belief in (and usually, worship thereof) a specific single God who exhibits control over everything in existence. Polytheism is the same, with the obvious difference that there are multiple Gods believed to exist ... each usually controlling different aspects of all existence.

These specifics determine a religion (the God(s) involved, what they control, how to worship/appease them and the boons or consequences expected of one's actions). The practice of religion is not necessarily limited to--or inclusive of--church attendance and rituals (sacrifices, hymnals, baptisms, etc), but can also be attributed to simple acknowledgment and the resultant structuring of one's daily life in regards to them.

Basically, religion is based on "knowledge" of the deity/deities and the practitioner's relationship to them (theism). This separates it from the simple belief in a God that is unknown or indefinable and does not intervene in human affairs (deism).



If everyone had the same outlook as this statemtn, then no word would ever have been defined and no idea would have ever gained ground. Maybe earth would still be considered the center of the universe and the ancient Gods would still be worshipped. Interesting ...

I've always found irksome the greater inconsistencies and oft imprecision of the English language ... note your discussion with massagetrade (should I capitalize the name even though you don't? LOL It feels really odd not to) above debating the finer details of how any one statement can be defined from various perspectives. If the small group of us here can come to a consensus and flesh out a more comprehensive set of terms, even by more appropriately defining existing terms ... why not adjust your own understanding of terms despite the rest of the world? Who is to say we cannot start a better understanding of the various levels of religiosity?

I'll make an example by recapping a Mythbusters segment ... "bull in a china shop". Yes, I know its not a single word, but the idiom does say something about commonly accepted definitions. To most people, this phrase means that someone is clumsy and involuntarily destructive based on the idea that if a bull were let loose in a room full of hundreds of fragile objects, then chaos would ensue. However, because of their size and demeanor, bovines can be more graceful than they are given credit ... as proven in that particular episode.

Ha! Well, absurd questions deserve equally absurd answers. If I am in the mood to take the metaphysical approach, I'd say "yes, it does exist since it can be imagined, it must be so."

If I were feeling particularly long-winded, perhaps I'd start by pointing out that anything invisible (not subject to the effects of light in the visible spectrum and therefore, its reflection) could not possibly be pink. Then I would state that, if ethereal, the dragon cannot to be constructed of solid matter and must be subject to the destructive power of air-flow, much like gases, smoke, mist, etc. And while I'm willing to agree that its certainly possible that any volume of gas or smoke may, at any point, chance the form of a three-toed dragon (perhaps a cloud), that form is not sustainable outside of a vessel specifically crafted to maintain that shape ... and that vessel (or at least the effects of that vessel) would surely not be intangible.

Or, I'd buy a dragon statue and put it under my bed so I can bring it up later and pull it out and say "You were right! Since I wasn't looking at it, it was certainly invisible to my eye and since I wasn't touching it, it may be considered metaphysically incorporeal. In the end, its just a dragon statue." :D



While I've never heard anyone actually refer to themselves as "weak atheists", I'll not argue your usage of the term and clarify that it wasn't intended as a slight. My intent was to bring the OP's original question back into focus by pointing out exactly how inappropriate the ideas of "weak and strong atheism", no matter who uses the terms. He's right that while agnosticism is pretty self-explanatory, "atheist" is a broad term that doesn't exactly specify (by its definition, as I provided) the varying levels that lie outside of theism or the belief in God(s) and/or metaphysical and supernatural phenomena.

Most people consider atheism the opposite extreme of fundamentalism. I don't believe it is. I tend to believe that intellect and reason is the extreme opposite of fundamentalism. And like the rectangle and the square, atheism may be the disbelief in religion, but the disbelief in God(s), metaphysical and/or supernatural occurrences may not strictly be atheism.

That's not entirely true. As Bill Maher stated on his show recently, 85% of Swedish people are atheists but "its just too damned cold". Ha! And keep in mind that the Soviet Union was expressly atheistic (at least, churches were banned governmentally) until recently, so proving that even atheists (at least, those professing atheism) can exploit a system and keep a country down.

I find it interesting that no one is taking into account the actual definition of the term "atheist". Breaking the word into "a" (without) and "theism" (practice of religion) and the word only means a person who is not a practitioner of an organized religion. Their actual belief in a "divine power" is not defined within the actual construction of the word (and to be clear on that, Einstein defined divinity, or God, as the splendor of the universe and everything within it that can be known or not known). There is no "strong" or "weak" associated with the word itself ... if you don't believe in the practice of religion, for any reason or lack thereof, the strength of that non-practice is not affected. A "weak" atheist doesn't practice now and then; nor must a "strong" atheist decline every notion of spirituality or the "supernatural" ... it just means (s)he is not a practitioner of a religion.

The extreme I believe you are trying to describe with "strong" is rather called "anti-theism" ... those who ultimately prefer or demand the abolition of all organized religion. However, even that is not exactly correct because, while it would certainly pertain to Christianity or Judaism or Islam, etc, that does not exactly exclude all supernatural existences or ideas of divinity.

That said, getting back to the OP's question, a more properly associated term would be best.

To describe my personal belief, I am certainly an atheist ... I believe all organized religions, if not originally intended as a scam, at least began to be exploited in that manner somewhere along the way and that none of them are based on any truth whatsoever. I base this on the idea that if any of them were, we would certainly all know ... without doubt. None of those jealous and wrathful Gods would, for any stretch of time or imagination, allow anyone to believe otherwise.

However, on the other side of that argument, I do not profess to know or be able to know, on any level, whether the "supernatural" or "divine" actually does or does not exist. I require (as any scientist would) proof either way and until that proof exists, the matter will remain unsettled. So in this, I am certainly agnostic.

I've often thought of "anti-deist" to describe a pure lack of belief in all things divine. Certainly that would be a more appropriate term to define the lack of faith in any deity, a step beyond all religious connotation.

So far its dubbed "Project Café" and they appear to be going with a more traditional controller.

"Cafe's main controller will feature dual analog sticks (which apparently are not staggered) and a d-pad, plus shoulder and face buttons. Where this design deviates from the norm is that it contains a six-inch tablet-like screen in the middle, which cannot only be used for displaying menus or gameplay, but is touch-capable. The inclusion of the screen has resulted in a more rectangular design for the controller, though we've heard there are grips or handles of some sort. We've likened it to a wider Dreamcast controller, but we have yet to get what we consider to be solid confirmation on the exact design."

There's a pic (estimated look based on descriptions so far--though the original Wii-motes are supposed to work with the system as well)and more info here:

http://wii.ign.com/articles/113/1135489p1.html

Actually, that was true until 64-bit architecture was introduced into PCs. Now its pretty much all the same. Especially now that Macs have gone Intel. And as for "try installing OSX on a PC" ... you can now. See the whole Macs have gone Intel bit. My Core 2 Duo machine tri-boots Ubuntu, Win 7 and Snow Leopard.

I had been using 64-bit XP Pro for years (went to Win7 this weekend) and it was great, but the problem I had with it is a lack of product support. Not many have been (and with 7 out now, especially), no one IS bothering with backwards compatibility for products for 64-bit XP. And why should they? Win7 will not only be far more prevalent, but is actually a good platform. I've heard mostly good things about it from all corners, even people who are even more hardcore Linux users than I who hate Microsoft.

I wouldn't be bothering with anything Windows, but for the fact that I'm a gamer and windows emulation in Linux is touchy at best (Wine is ok for many Windows programs, but not so much for gaming).

To get back on topic though, every product of ASUS I've ever owned has never let me down and I have a couple friends with new ASUS netbooks who are extremely pleased with them. In my experience, anything HP/Compaq has serious issues.

PC vs Mac ... Mac is expensive and really, that's the only difference. Back in the day, you were paying for quality and product support, but anymore you're just paying for the label. PCs have virii, yes ... but that's because they're far more common. All you have to do is pay attention to what you're doing and be cautious when you're surfing or downloading, a good practice to have anyway. But, the more prevalent Mac becomes, you'll start seeing them for OSX. So in the end, you chose to pay round about $500 for a Win 7 notebook or $1700 for an Macbook Air. Considering all the info in this thread and how the market has changed over the years, its a really easy choice.

Its easy to say that when you're not being force choked by one of the most powerful Sith Lords ever.

Wipe away all knowledge and traumatization of the new trilogy and THAT Vader would own. The only reason he was brought down was because a family tie he was previously unaware of was suddenly introduced and the emotion that came with that threatened his ideas of what the Emperor and the Dark Side represented. With that in mind, I think the rest wouldn't stand a chance.

All of the above scientists you quoted from my post were atheists. Einstein's definition of God was just the immensity of the universe and its many mysteries as yet unfolded by man. As for Charles Darwin, he scripted his ideas on God in Voyage of the Beagle. Don't know much about de Laplace, admittedly.



Oh, but you did.



And you do realize time began far before the middle ages, right?



Ok, let me rephrase that ... religion has been ACCEPTED over the millenia due to a need to explain existence simply and was then used to control those very people.



How many of those scientists have you met and gotten to know personally? I only know what history and biographies have told me. So here's an idea, you build a time machine (and earn eternal fame as scientist, yourself--bonus!), then we'll get to know them personally, together. After that, we can argue about scientific motivations. Until then, I'm done. Bye, bye now.

Ahhh superstition. I used to work at a service station and the total for one guy's gas and drink was $6.66. After seeing the total, the guy demanded that I charge him an extra penny. When I refused, citing that its just a combination of numbers, he added a pack of gum.

No? While your claims of these "Learned People" being employed and then continuing work after employment with the church is no doubt true, its only LOGICAL that just because churches funded specific "scientific" research to fool their flock does NOT mean that the desire to learn and discover new things and how things work did not exist before--or outside of--organized religion (the need to explain these things simply is what birthed religion, in fact). If you doubt that, take a look at numerous atheist and non-affiliated scientists throughout history who have made large impacts on science as we know it. Gallileo, Albert Einstein, Pierre Simon de Laplace, Charles Darwin and modern scientists like Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins. All of these people were not influenced by religion in their desire to learn how the world (or things in or outside of it) works.

Well ... maybe Richard Dawkins was in a spiteful kind of way.

The point is, contrary to what you've said earlier, that God has created imperfection. The vessels which house our souls are imperfect in so many ways. So, as the question was posed and remains unanswered, why would an all-powerful being create imperfection?

Actually, I can see cowboy's point here. It very well could be the INTENDED meaning. I see "fruitful" not necessarily as doing God's will, but just being productive in general. Example: "Will this plan bear fruit?" meaning to ask if a particular course of action will be successful.