New Riding Buddy (heheh)

Mark Hickey wrote:
"Corvus Corvax" wrote:


This will be the last I post on this subject, I think, but I spent a
while on a nice 30-mile spin on the fix this morning doing a little
critical thinking and it would be interesting to put it into electrons.

Mark Hickey wrote:

Still, you ascribe more moral importance to YOUR "religion" and don't
want to allow those with other viewpoints the same visibility.
Replace "religion" with "mores" or "beliefs" and it's the same thing.
Pure hypocrisy.

[...bizarre ranting about Al Quaeda snipped...]

This is what I mean by exploiting the American cultural instinct for
fairness: I have a religious belief system. Therefore any belief system
you have is necessarily religious, and therefore must be held to be on
equal footing with _my_ religious belief system.


I'm all for that. But the atheist religion requires 100% adherence to
its beliefs in the public realm, even though the practitioners are a
minority of the population (imagine if society had somehow chosen
another religion like Ismam or Judaism, and tried to force 100%
compliance).



I don't see this at all. You see, I'm not an Atheist (surprise!) but I
feel like I've never been forced to accept anything from them.
They don't come and knock on my door and try to convert me. They don't
try and spend tax money on monuments to their belief system. They don't
even appear to be an organized group (there are no churches or other
specific meeting places for them). How am I being forced to comply
again? I'm just minding my business (from a religious perspective) and
trying to point out when someone else's beliefs are trying to steamroll
mine or anyone else's.

Matt

MattB wrote:
Bill Sornson wrote:
MattB wrote:

I'm not sure either, but I'll believe scientists over politicians or
lobbyists.


Which is why people worshipping at the flat feet of Al Gore is such a
crack-up. The man is seriously nuts -- and so are at least some of
his computer models and animations.

Guess we'll have to see...


Well I disagree, but I know he's got an agenda and he's a politician
so I take his words with a grain of salt.
Of course his side of the debate has got a lot more support from the
scientific community, so that makes it more credible to me.


The fly in that ointment is that these scientists and researchers have a
/vested interest/ in global warming being legit. It literally puts bread on
their tables. (Plus, of course, few of them are privately funded. The very
government/society they criticize so bitterly is more often than not paying
for their "work".)

But you're right. We'll have to see.

Yup.

Bill Sornson wrote:
MattB wrote:

Bill Sornson wrote:

MattB wrote:


I'm not sure either, but I'll believe scientists over politicians or
lobbyists.



Which is why people worshipping at the flat feet of Al Gore is such a
crack-up. The man is seriously nuts -- and so are at least some of
his computer models and animations.

Guess we'll have to see...



Well I disagree, but I know he's got an agenda and he's a politician
so I take his words with a grain of salt.
Of course his side of the debate has got a lot more support from the
scientific community, so that makes it more credible to me.


You have a much bigger
problem. Manbearpig.



The fly in that ointment is that these scientists and researchers have a
/vested interest/ in global warming being legit. It literally puts bread on
their tables. (Plus, of course, few of them are privately funded. The very
government/society they criticize so bitterly is more often than not paying
for their "work".)

Two things about this:

That is a dangerously critical
argument to make. You are
suggesting that they are
practicing unethically, which
is essentially the worst
critique you can make of a
scientist, and one I wouldn't
make without substantiating
evidence. I wouldn't argue
that the drive for that
'sccop' is large, but I think
that in general scientists are
on the level. I am of course
somewhat biased in that respect.

I think that the story with
reasonable evidence that
global warming is due to
temperature cycles or other
phenomenon not involving human
development is equally as
interesting - and less
represented - than that
condemning our ignorance. With
sound arguments and supporting
data I would find such an
article a very good read.



But you're right. We'll have to see.


It's unfortunate that 'wait
and see' is not an approach
that we can afford with
something of such global
impact and time delay between
action and consequence, or I
would agree.


Yup.

cc wrote:
snip more useless pontificating from an inconsequential dingleberry on
the ass of life


Why don't you go ride your bike?

JD

MattB wrote:

No offense meant to you or anyone else CDB (which I realize probably
didn't pan out), but I just typed what I felt.

****, CDB is what we need more of: he just seems to want to apply a
little common sense to life and otherwise be left the hell alone. (I'll
buy you a beer any time, CDB: you may not think so right at the moment,
but I feel pretty sure we are more-or-less on the same side in the
world.)

As far as Brandi goes, my wife took a look at her web site, and all she
had to say was "Man, that girl is compensating for some kind of really
serious kink."

Women know.

CC

Corvus Corvax wrote:

As far as Brandi goes, my wife took a look at her web site, and all
she had to say was "Man, that girl is compensating for some kind of
really serious kink."

Women know.

Why so judgmental? Ah, more making fun of people; forgot.

I don't think that not wanting 8-year-old kids looking at pictures in "The
Joy of Sex" (gay OR straight) in the library without parental permission or
approval means that she (or anyone for that matter) is a prude.

I don't agree with many of her political positions (none of which I'd even
known about unless Pete pushed her website), but I hardly think she's
"dangerous". She's a conservative Christian activist; so what?

I think it's great that she rides (despite that ancient helmet); good for
her.

Bill "much (threaded) ado about nothing" S.

MattB wrote:
Mark Hickey wrote:
"Corvus Corvax" wrote:


This will be the last I post on this subject, I think, but I spent a
while on a nice 30-mile spin on the fix this morning doing a little
critical thinking and it would be interesting to put it into electrons.

Mark Hickey wrote:

Still, you ascribe more moral importance to YOUR "religion" and don't
want to allow those with other viewpoints the same visibility.
Replace "religion" with "mores" or "beliefs" and it's the same thing.
Pure hypocrisy.

[...bizarre ranting about Al Quaeda snipped...]

This is what I mean by exploiting the American cultural instinct for
fairness: I have a religious belief system. Therefore any belief system
you have is necessarily religious, and therefore must be held to be on
equal footing with _my_ religious belief system.


I'm all for that. But the atheist religion requires 100% adherence to
its beliefs in the public realm, even though the practitioners are a
minority of the population (imagine if society had somehow chosen
another religion like Ismam or Judaism, and tried to force 100%
compliance).



I don't see this at all. You see, I'm not an Atheist (surprise!) but I
feel like I've never been forced to accept anything from them.
They don't come and knock on my door and try to convert me. They don't
try and spend tax money on monuments to their belief system. They don't
even appear to be an organized group (there are no churches or other
specific meeting places for them). How am I being forced to comply
again? I'm just minding my business (from a religious perspective) and
trying to point out when someone else's beliefs are trying to steamroll
mine or anyone else's.

That's my take on it as well. I have NEVER ONCE been told by an
atheist (or agnostic, for that matter) what I should believe, or what
way I should raise my kids. Not once, ever. I have, OTOH, been told
multiple times, in person, and by proxy, that I should be raising my
kids to think exactly like this Brandi character.

I'm also not buying the spin that atheism is a religion - I would guess
that atheists would laugh at an attempt to spin their lack of belief in
a deity as some sort of religion. It sounds like a wing-nut talking
point. In fact, most of the folks I know who don't like religious
symbols in the public square are religious themselves. I am one of
those folks. You do your thing, I'll do mine, and leave the couthouse
lawn to things other than Old Testament tablets brought down from the
mount. If you want a big TC monument on your lawn, have at it. Heck,
buy a billboard. Good for you. But thanks, I can supervise my kids'
library habits just fine. I don't need *you* to help. In fact, butt
out. It's NOYB. The Ten Commandments? I know EXACTLY where to find
them. I have several books in the house that have them listed. My
oldest daughter even has a children's version. Save your money from
buying thousands of dollars of graven image, and do something with it
that the New Testament might have words on. Feed the poor, maybe?
Heal the sick? Something tangible.

The Koran on the courthouse lawn? Yeah, I'd bet there'd be a bunch of
angry shouting about Establishment clause then. How about a monument
to Satanism? Good, old-fashioned college hi-jinks there, right? Nope,
there'd be a lawsuit in a second. Heck, even if there were Satanic
symbols on private property, our neighborhood nosey nannies would be
right there with lawyers in hand.

The funny thing about sex books in the library? They're way tame, and
in a public place. At least compared to the utter filth just waiting
on the other side of a computer screen. Tubgirl, anyone? Goatse?
Give me a break. And that screen is in a private room, in lots of
houses. I'm less worried about a little look-see in the library than
predators on Myspace. And way less worried about the library than the
subliminal sex messages beemed out into the room anytime network TV is
on.

I don't know why it's so tough for folks to grasp the quaint idea of
"You live your life, I'll live mine."

E.P.

MattB wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:

I'm all for that. But the atheist religion requires 100% adherence to
its beliefs in the public realm, even though the practitioners are a
minority of the population (imagine if society had somehow chosen
another religion like Ismam or Judaism, and tried to force 100%
compliance).

I don't see this at all. You see, I'm not an Atheist (surprise!) but I
feel like I've never been forced to accept anything from them.

Turned on the TV lately? The values represented by most of the drivel
are certainly not those of any religion other than atheism. Think
about how often you see a Christian portrayed in a positive light on
your favorite shows. If half the shows were like "Seventh Heaven"
(sic?) you'd have a point.

Let some nutcase shoot an abortion doctor and it's front page news for
weeks (and fodder for countless newsgroup discussions), while the REAL
work that's being done by the Christian community (feeding the poor,
rehabilitating criminals, supporting those going through tough times,
etc., etc., etc.) is virtually absent from public view in the news.

They don't come and knock on my door and try to convert me.

Check your inbox. No religion other than atheism could possibly come
up with the crap I get daily.

They don't
try and spend tax money on monuments to their belief system. They don't
even appear to be an organized group (there are no churches or other
specific meeting places for them).

There are plenty of denominations in the "church of atheism". The
only thing they really have in common is an anti-Judeo/Christian
philosphy.

How am I being forced to comply
again? I'm just minding my business (from a religious perspective) and
trying to point out when someone else's beliefs are trying to steamroll
mine or anyone else's.

Look at the schools - the ACLU and others are trying to expunge
virtually any hint of anything related to religion from the classroom
and the textbooks. You can't even include rational scientific
discussion about evolution or the creation of the universe in the
textbooks because acknowledging some of the unknowns might open
someone's mind to the possibility that it was actually just more than
a coincidence.

Yeah, that rambled, but I hope it gave you at least a few things to
think about.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

JD wrote:
cc wrote:



Why don't you go ride your bike?


I did all weekend, jackass.

Do you have something of substance to say? You could at least google
something and plagiarize . . it would make you much more interesting.

"Mark Hickey" wrote in message
...
MattB wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:

I'm all for that. But the atheist religion requires 100% adherence to
its beliefs in the public realm, even though the practitioners are a
minority of the population (imagine if society had somehow chosen
another religion like Ismam or Judaism, and tried to force 100%
compliance).

I don't see this at all. You see, I'm not an Atheist (surprise!) but I
feel like I've never been forced to accept anything from them.

Turned on the TV lately? The values represented by most of the drivel
are certainly not those of any religion other than atheism.

I don't think there's a single American studio run by atheists. So that
drivel is produced by hypocritical Christians and Jews (and possibly a
Buddhist or Muslim or two).

Think
about how often you see a Christian portrayed in a positive light on
your favorite shows. If half the shows were like "Seventh Heaven"
(sic?) you'd have a point.

Let some nutcase shoot an abortion doctor and it's front page news for
weeks (and fodder for countless newsgroup discussions), while the REAL
work that's being done by the Christian community (feeding the poor,
rehabilitating criminals, supporting those going through tough times,
etc., etc., etc.) is virtually absent from public view in the news.

They don't come and knock on my door and try to convert me.

Check your inbox. No religion other than atheism could possibly come
up with the crap I get daily.

Most English speakers on the planet are Christian so it's more than likely
that stuff in your inbox was created by your typical hypocritical
Christians. And sidestepping Matt's point of being harassed by missionaries
will get you nowhere. I sure as hell have never been harassed by atheists
while hanging out at gay pride with my gay brother-in-law, nor have I been
harassed by atheists while drinking coffee and reading the paper at home on
a weekend.


They don't
try and spend tax money on monuments to their belief system. They don't
even appear to be an organized group (there are no churches or other
specific meeting places for them).

There are plenty of denominations in the "church of atheism". The
only thing they really have in common is an anti-Judeo/Christian
philosphy.

No, there are no denominations because there is no church, and there sure
isn't any anti philosophy except for being anti-breaking-the-constitution.


How am I being forced to comply
again? I'm just minding my business (from a religious perspective) and
trying to point out when someone else's beliefs are trying to steamroll
mine or anyone else's.

Look at the schools - the ACLU and others are trying to expunge
virtually any hint of anything related to religion from the classroom
and the textbooks. You can't even include rational scientific
discussion about evolution or the creation of the universe in the
textbooks because acknowledging some of the unknowns might open
someone's mind to the possibility that it was actually just more than
a coincidence.

Yeah, that rambled, but I hope it gave you at least a few things to
think about.


Only this part "while the REAL work that's being done by the Christian
community (feeding the poor, rehabilitating criminals, supporting those
going through tough times, etc., etc., etc.) is virtually absent from public
view in the news"
which is due to the hypocritical Christians and Jews running the media in
this country.

Greg