If you have a choice - if you can walk away any time you like - then you are not a slave.

Why am I not surprised that it takes one hallucinogenic delusion to know one?

You people aren't thinking this through at all.

I'd be willing to bet that most of you couldn't even make a spoon from scratch. Think about it.

Cool. I didn't actually do this research, someone else did. But I checked it (as should all of you - don't take my word for it!) and it's good.

I would be very surprised if you could put together anything with even a tenth of the sources. I would be happen to be proven wrong - by anyone!

That's not on the fence - that's ridiculous. You either believe in god or you don't. If you're not sure, or you're thinking about it, then you don't believe in god. These language games only seem to make sense because they're about god. When you make them about something else (a television, for instance), the illogicality is immediately uncovered.

"You mean... all this time... we could have been friends?"

Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?

I have no solution. I just want to e-high five someone who still plays Diablo II. That game rocks.



That is all.

People who actually do proper jobs like farmers, carpenters, etc. will be top of the heap again. Which is nice, in a way.

The good news is that anyone who has ever predicted the downfall of human civilization has been wrong. It's hard to argue with a hit rate of 0%.

I'm not sure why anyone would think attacking the Democratic Party is a valid defense of the Republican Party.

I don't like the Democratic Party either, as I mentioned in my first post. Attacking them does nothing at all to my arguments, or my post.

If they're on the fence, then they don't believe in god. If they haven't come to a final decision about believing in god, then they don't believe in god. Or, to put it another way, if I haven't come to a final decision about buying a television, then I haven't bought a television. No matter how on the fence I sincerely am, there is still no new television in my house.

Agreed. I would say that the majority of women are bi. Not in a college-girl-drunk type way, but in the way that they actually find other women sexually attractive. Either that or I just got really lucky with my girlfriends.

Well now that takes me right back to my elementary school days! I thought we were done with using homosexuality as an insult.

Hm.

Well, you just did there...

I don't think you get to decide what people "mean" when they say things. To say "anti-theist" implies that you're against a god. I can't be against something that I don't think exists. So, I'm an atheist. You can pretend that I actually mean something else, if you like, or you can redefine the word to mean something other than what it means. But I don't see why anyone else should have to go along with that.

Also, I never said anything about "anti-theism" one way or the other. Where did this come from?

You're making it a lot more complicated than it has to be. If you don't believe in a god, you're an atheist. The end.


You don't think you can be sexually attracted to men and women at the same time? Nice first post, by the way. Straight in there. You don't **** around, do you?

Maybe it's a typo, and they want to rate Justin Bieber? Or rave about him?

Well that implies that liberals are capable of the same vicious lies and propaganda. Which I don't think is true. Although if you can link to as many as I have linked to in that piece, I will gladly admit that you are correct.


And you didn't read much further did you? I must respectfully ask you to read the entire piece before developing an opinion on it. Thank you.

I'd go the other way - I'd say that all agnostics are atheists. An atheist is just someone who doesn't believe in a god. So, if you can't say "I believe in a god," which I gather agnostics can't say, then you're an atheist.

Well done. There are refreshments for everyone, and the restrooms are just out that door and first on the left.

Well that would be ideal, but sadly it clashes with their religion, which apparently is government-appointed as bulletproof.


And how great is that? This is why science is wonderful -as new information becomes available, it changes too!

Yes, yes it was. I was trying to get a debate going, so don't take it as an insult.

However, did you read through that list?

Sadly, the principle that organisms might fight over limited resources is not only easily explained by evolution, but sometimes drives it.

When I heard that Katy Perry single, I noticed things, and was forced to write this:
http://solo1y.livejournal.com/70820.html

Well, I guess if it's just for fun.

I don't know though. I love Daft Punk (something my dad calls "repetitive gibberish") and Nine Inch Nails (of which, when I said the CD was skipping, he asked "How can you tell?"), so what the hell do I know?

It's a shame that reason and correct information tends to be controversy-proof. Maybe more people would notice.

The people attacking him don't seem to be interested in accuracy. From what I can see, they regard intelligence as a liability. They will accept the worst behaviour imaginable from someone who shares their values, but allow not even the slightest imperfections in those who do not share their values.

This political wilful ignorance, then, is not about the massive gap in understanding or factual accuracy, but about the gap in values.

But just what are these values, exactly? I am reminded of an entertaining Daily Show piece (which presumably was cut to hell to produce a comic effect) where delegates at a Republican convention were quizzed as to what these "values" were, exactly. The only thing they ALL had in common was homophobia.

However, the fact that they are not interested in facts should not dissuade the rest of us from presenting them with these facts at every opportunity. Don't be fooled, however, that this is serving anyone or anything apart from our need to sleep at night.