> Ehawk wrote:

> do you think that the combine point of view from many people coordinating and confirmations is good enough to justify partial access to reality observations? just wondering...

it cannot be for the simple reason that you think you know of multiple people confirming something by your single point of view...

> Levitas wrote:

>
The answer that is most commonly given to this question is "My parents raised me to be a Catholic, so I'm a Catholic".  Ok, so that means these people are Catholics because of the social implications involved.  If they don't believe this, then they may be disowned, ridiculed, and so on ...  This then begs the question, Why did your parents choose Catholicism?  Then again with the answer of that's how they were raised and this cycle repeats until we down to the real answer.  The reason that people who were raised as Catholics are Catholics is because of where their ancestors were born.  They are letting something as arbitrary as the birthplace of someone hundreds, if not thousand of years dead decide the final resting place of their soul.  Some people will take this as "I'm trying to remain close to my ancestors with strong family traditions".  Well, some of those ansestors were forced to religion as the social implications then were far more dangerous then the ones we face now.  And there is lies the question; Why do you Believe?  What makes your religion work for you? 

I don't want an answer to this question for my own sake, I just want people to look at the decisions they've made and be happy with them, they are in fact your decisions.  If there is a God, he gave us free will for a reason.  The free will to choose to love God.  When you die and you go to that eternal bliss that I hope you achieve and you are before whatever God you believe in, if he asks you "Why do YOU love me?", "Because my Mom told me too" seems like a pretty incomplete answer.

you said yourself, there isnt much difference between most of the modern religions, why does it matter why they chose that particular religion. you could take that same line of reasoning for science. everything you or i believe is because of society. the difference between us and cavemen is whats been passed down from our ancestors..

"
oh, for the record, the demacrats are not "socialist", as they are portrayed by the elephants.  they believe in "Bottom-up" economy. which is confused with socialism, because they want the larger percentage of the population to be wealthy instead of a handfull of super rich. 200million middle class people would generate far better tax revenue that 100million broke ass welfare recipients!"

how do the democrats try to make the majority wealthy? they dont. the government cant employ everyone; they need to rely on businesses to hire people; what they do is they get their hands on the most money they can possibly justify, then they stuff a ton of it in their pockets, and then they give little small, shot sighted gains to the masses to justify the raise in government spending. Republicans see that the competition between business provides motivation to boost efficiency that no government could match, so they see that companies competing with each other is going to create the most revenue for the largest amount of people with the least amount of wealth...  Republicans dont beleive in achieving equal wealth throughout the population... they beleive in encouraging the creation of wealth, democrats beleive in controlling wealth...

you're telling us to loosen up, but it sounds like the guys in the office were laughing and having a good time, sounds pretty loose too me... you're they up tight one ranting against the US... you loosen up...

> DPS wrote:

> ok here's how you solve the terrorists on planes problem.  From now on everyone who wants to fly has to arrive at the air port and submit to a stip and cavity search, and I do mean everyone.  Furthermore every piece of luggage will be opened and searched.  Unless you're willing to accept this level of security you have to accept that no matter how tight you make security a few people are going to get through.

no security system is flawless, even the extreme one you listed.

yeah, discriminate against millions just to have terrorists spend an extra $50 and dress up their terrorists...

are you inferring that the occasional suicide bomber should just be something that we learn to accept?

"@avo, i am not saying that religious people are dishonest and untrustworthy, i'm saying that humans in general, are dishonest and untrustworthy."

"i dont trust any religious information"

no, you pretty clearly singled out religious people....

"in my opinion christianity is the worst behaved organized religion ever..."

why is that? purely the crusades and inquisition?

> Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:

> > Ehawk wrote:

> first off, i never trust wikepedia...

I'll find another source when I get back home.  But go to the cited sources within the Wikipedia page.  There you go.

i already got a pretty decent non-wiki source in an above post....

> Ehawk wrote:

> "i think you're milking the fact for way more then it should be... "

i think we are both guilty of this.

"what does the fact that its your personal opinion have to do with how idiotic a thing it is to beleive?"

because by stating that its my personal opinion, i allows readers to say, "okay, that his opinion, and its not to be consider true unless proof is given". And your opinion is that jesus did existed, yet you give no proof either, but for some reason, you would consider me wrong if i consider your opinion to be an idiotic belief, but we are really just two different people with two different opinions and neither of us should be considered true until proof is given. 
__________________
now, i am just about an hour away from my next solar recording on the wood shaft, so far, my hypothesis is correct.  today is cloudy, so i dont think today's recording will be easy.  I do not wish for a false recording, i will try my best and my grandfather will confirm so we can aviod a false reading.  wish me luck

how am i milking the fact that christmas is based of a pagan holiday for the winter solstice?

well, theres more evidence of the existence of Jesus, then there is the existence of Alexander the Great... it might be your opinion that jesus doesnt exist, but without evidence to support your claim, you just appear to be an idiot...

"Christmas was simply the celebration of the winter soltice and for foreshadowing of spring, then when we actually get spring, its easter... the icon of jesus has nothing to do with any holiday."

just because Jesus has nothing to do with the earliest form of the holiday doesnt mean he has nothing to with the Holiday...  yes... Christmas's origins is the winter solstice, its a fact children learn when they're like 5, i think you're milking the fact for way more then it should be...

"avo, thats why at the beginning of the statment i made sure i mentioned that it was my "personal opinion".  "

what does the fact that its your personal opinion have to do with how idiotic a thing it is to beleive?

this is so gonna be fun, 3 different stories of how the neanderthals went extinct from 3 people, none citing sources...