Absolutely nothing. The average American teen has never known a culture other than one of egotistical consumerism. They have never known a rainy day and have no concept of history as a foundation of the future.

Most only know "now" and generally have little concern outside of their own desires and the desires of their friends.

(I said MOST for a reason. We all know the odd teen who seems mature for their age and perceives things their peers do not, but they are a rarity)

I have heard of it, but never played it

http://www.regia.org/games.htm

COMMENTS: Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago,
and our nation was the most prosperous in the world.
We had absolutely no national debt,
had the largest middle class in the world,
and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.
What happened?

well.... 100 years ago we did have a debt, but it was reasonable. Coming from a state with one of the highest (if not the highest) taxes I feel the pain -- frequently and deeply.

Don't tell me, show me...

Cute pics, but run of the mill profile. You say you have a strange sense of humor... so show me. Give me an example.

I am all for putting things in your profile that show what kind of person you are instead of you telling me.

:)

G'luck and have fun.

Looks like a good program and it will probably be around for a while. It only receives a small percentage of its operating capital from the government in the form of grants. And it is completely voluntary...

I think this kind of makes the point that a lot of people have been complaining about. There seem to be good programs out there that do good things and aren't a tax burden.

I think I did not express myself very clearly, I will try again. If I am wrong, then maybe I will be able to see it.

My major disagreement with you was your claim that faith is a belief without proof. My statement was that faith is a belief in something that cannot be proven. A little different. Faith is not just hopes and wishes or belief in something despite evidence to the contrary.

I think it is completely possible for someone to believe in something despite contrary evidence. True, they might be classified as delusional; but there are also degrees of this. Personally, I hold the belief that if I commit no crime I am safe from imprisonment. This is not factually true (there are numerous examples that show being innocent of a crime is not always enough to keep you from jail), but it is a belief I hold to so that my life is more relaxed. Am I delusional for purposefully believing myself to be safer than I am? Maybe.

So, the point I was trying to show is that believing in something without proof is too broad. I think faith is believing in something that CANNOT be proven.

--Yes, I did omit the 4 words "to believe in God", thank you.

As for the greatest intellects having faith, perhaps you and I do not agree on the term intellectual. I would classify artists, poets, scientists, engineers and statesmen as intellectuals. People who use their rational minds to relate to the world. People like Galileo, Einstein, Plato and Shakespeare.

Your previous post asked why someone would indulge in faith. I offered some reasons that I believed someone would. Comfort, perspective and a measure of control are not illusions; they are states of being. If a person relies on faith to comfort them through tragedy, I don't see anything wrong with that (in fact, I am a little envious). Whether I agree with a person's choice to believe in something or not, I must allow that their faith changes their behavior -- often in positive ways.

As to your comment that "just giving yourself answers" is intellectually lazy, you lost me. In order to learn new things, you have to make assumptions. Assumptions are like a temporary place holder for things we don't know. When we find our assumption is correct we replace the temporary thing with a permanent one; if it is wrong we replace it altogether.

I am assuming that when I die my sentience is destroyed. I don't know that it will be. I don't know that the energy that is part of who I am will wink out of existence or slowly fade away. I don't know if in 30 years science will have created an artificial framework of my sentience. My faith lies in the understanding that when I die, I am gone. That faith changes the decisions I make on a daily basis, knowing that there is no reward (nor punishment) for me when I am finished.

What am I?

The more you take, the more you leave behind.

dunno... I am unfamiliar with that program

The problem is, language is important. There is a huge disconnect between the ideas being presented and the words being used.

Do I think it would be a good idea that a 17 year old mother of 2 kids has someone they can go to for help getting their life on track? Sure. But that isn't the language being used.

The government "will provide" means that it is now the governments job to send a representative into people's homes and tell them the best ways to raise their children. And, you can bet that each representative will be a mandated reporter for the state.

Why not change "will provide" to "will make available"? Wouldn't that ease a lot of fears??? Is there a reason they chose the language that they used?

As for No Child Left Behind, the reason that is such a monumental failure is because it treats all children as being the same (a similar criticism that some are raising with this package).

Now... as for the cost of creating an army of social workers to save our children from their parents.... that is problematic in itself.

Edit: Just went through the pdf and found this:

18 ‘‘(A) means expenditures to provide vol
19 untary home visitation for as many families
20 with young children (under the age of school
21 entry) and families expecting children as prac
22 ticable,

but the funding still looks like a nightmare.

If it didn't burn when I peed the next morning

Kill and decapitate all the competition. In the end...

THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!




(sorry, sometimes I have a chemical deficiency of seriousness)

Rich, then I wouldn't have to choose because the people around me would describe me as all 3 all day long.

hmmm...

Women who do not respond to my polite charms have low self-esteem.

Not saying you are incorrect, just the way you say it seems a little weird.

*sigh*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4royOLtvmQ

You can believe in something without proof without it being faith. I believe that if I do not commit a crime then I will not go to jail. Even though there is ample evidence against this, I still believe it.

However, to believe in something that cannot be proven -- that seems to be the place where faith resides. Maybe I am just splitting hairs but it works for me.

The big one of course is God. God is supposed to be beyond human comprehension and transcends the physical cosmos. Since It is outside our realm of perception the rules of evidence and proof fall away. Since there is no way to prove that God exists and no way to prove that God does not exist, you must rely on faith.

But you ask why any self-aware entity would indulge in this... it is because we are self-aware. We are aware of who we are, our impending deaths and we try to make sense of our place in the universe. Faith offers comfort, perspective and a measure of control.

I think it is a bit disingenuous to characterize faith as being intellectually lazy. Some of the greatest intellects the world has ever known have had a strong sense of faith.

Think about it this way: where is your mind? For centuries that question has caused philosophers to develop all sorts of strange answers. But in some way, shape or form the organic part of you fashions a self-aware sentience that is part of you. But is it indivisible? Can a sentience exist outside of its organic framework?

I don't know. I don't know how to prove it or disprove it. In essence, the answer of that question is beyond my ability to "know". In fact, I have resigned myself that I will never know, so instead... I believe.

I have faith that no matter what the energy is within me that classifies me as being alive, when I die that energy will dissipate. Maybe quickly, maybe slowly. But regardless, the separation of material corpus and energy destroys my sentience. That separation ends my identity.

That is the best I can do with what I have. I have no proof. I doubt I will ever have proof. But I need an answer so that I may choose how to live my life, so I give myself an answer.

(wow, that was a bit of a ramble... my apologies)

yeah, I have heard about this. That is why I am brushing up on my doublespeak.

I think I tend to agree with most here in that depending on how you define the concepts will determine your answers.

For me, faith is believing in something that cannot be proven (an of course this leads to a side topic of what is proof). Religion is how that belief is expressed, whether it is an individual's personal practices or an organized set of rituals.

I don't know if anyone else would agree with this because it means that someone with compulsive disorders would be classified as religious. They would have a very strong faith that something bad will happen if they do not do something, and their individual compulsions would be classified as a ritualistic expression of their faith.

So with these definitions, I don't think you can necessarily compare which is stronger. True, one leads to another but the idea is not necessarily more powerful than the practice.

I do not believe that you can have faith without religion. Whatever belief you embrace must be expressed in some fashion. Yet you can enact religious practices without the faith (How many of us were sent to church as children without knowing or feeling the faith behind the practice?)

I know, a little different than most of the opinions here but I am contrary by nature.

enjoy your stay

no. I think the word I would use is inspiration.

A man is at his absolute best when he is "doing" for something of import. We can work for money or respect, but to have your accomplishments reflected in the eyes of the woman you love defines you in a sublime way.