OGTEleven

Please explain the difference between agnostic and atheist. Perhaps I have misunderstood them.

I took him to be making a sarcastic joke with a buddy who happens to be a scientist. Maybe I was wrong. If I said birds can fly I would be right. If I said all birds can fly, I would be wrong. You quoted him in your post and added a word in quotation marks and you're now lecturing me on proper use and meaning. Classic.

An atheist doesn't "believe" anything. An Atheist KNOWS. That is arrogant. I haven't seen too many stake burnings in our society lately, have you? It may be wrong to push your belief on someone. It may even become criminal at times. Arrogant has a different meaning.

I gave an example earlier in the thread (to your 2nd paragraph). I'm sure it won't hold up to your scientific standards, but it certainly displays poor curriculums, if nothing else.

You should only put things in quotes if you are quoting. "Scientists" and "All scientists" have two different meanings. Sarcasm also had a place in Bill's post which was lost on you or at least you pretended it was.

Okay, let me get this straight...... An atheist is so smart that he has figured out that God does not exist. He can't figure out how to circle the galaxy, cure cancer, or sometimes even properly drive a car but he CAN figure out how the entire universe is built to a sufficient degree to KNOW that God is a myth? That, in your book, is not arrogant? In the same post you are saying religious people are arrogant because the BELIEVE something. The very theory that God MIGHT exist is an imposition on our freedom? Okey Dokey. How might an all knowing atheist explain a belief in free will?

Poor analogy (but of course you knew that). "Scientists" demand, perhaps properly so, that evolution be taught in schools. The way in which this science is taught leaves students with the impression that God is a myth, even though evolution itself makes no such claim. The "scientists" do not seem concerned about fixing the faulty teaching. My church does not teach that evolution is "the devil's work" or refute it at all. There is no need for anyone believing in evolution to fear anything from my religion or want to speak there.

Sort of like, people who believe in God are crazed lunatics trying to impose their belief system?

Fine. I hope I never lag in the pole.

They hit first. The others are hitting back. They're wrong for doing it, and they're doing it improperly, but they're hitting back just the same. Agreed. Well, I'll start with a simple example. You see a lot of cars driving around with fishes on the back right? You know, Jesus fishes. Some might look at that as free expression, others might see it as preachy or elitist. Whatever. Now you see a lot of cars driving around with fishes that have feet and the word "Darwin" embedded in them. Clearly this is a shot back at religious fishes. Why would the people with the Darwin fish thingies use them if they didn't think that Darwin somehow refutes Jesus and/or God altogether? It is like battling a Knicks bumper sticker with a Greenpeace bumper sticker. It's dumb. And it's coming from a crowd professing to be ever so brilliant. Maybe they are being taught improperly. Maybe some people are taken aback by that and are fighting back in a stupid way.

If you went to St. Mary's instead of St. Edward's you'd be fine.

Point 1: You're wrong. He's a caustic idiot who thinks he's funny. He is just veiling his hate for religious people in a rant against ID. The individual rant target (ID being taught) is a valid one. The undertones cannot be mistaken. Give me any topic and I could write something "funny" like that. So could anyone. Big friggin deal. Let's be clear also that I'm not offended by his writing. i just think (check that, KNOW) it is stupid. Point 2: I'm not defending the teaching of ID. I'm saying that it is being advocated out of defense, not offense. The best scenario is to remove the anti-God overtones to today's education (whether intended or not). I don't see why this would be fought, but it is fought, thus the irrational defense mechanism developed. I don't think presenting the ideas of God vs. no-God are that objectionable really (at the right age), but to know that teaching evolution is producing atheism, although it shouldn't, and to do nothing about it is either folly or malicious.

All of this back and forth about science vs religion does not change two basic thinngs: 1. Idiots like the spaghetti monster author think they are so smart that they can mock the belief in a creator. They are only using the classes and IDers as a proxy. It comes through loud and clear. They're free to do so. I just wonder how they're so smart that they can figure out God is a myth, but they aren't smart enough to do simple things like explain free will, eradicate cancer or hop around the universe on their tricycles. 2. While ID as "science" is misguided, it is being proposed as a defense mechanism. Deny it all you want, but the teaching of evolution in schools has led many to believe there is no God. Although in theory, evolution should be "God neutral", in practice it has not been. I believe in God. I want my kids to believe in God (Although they will not be forced, I will explain my beliefs.) I see no reason why I should allow a faulty system of education have them come to a different conclusion based on facts that don't connect.

When someone dies, it seems to always be said "let us celebrate the life rather than mourn the death". Most times that is a very difficult thing to do. Although we mourn the loss of Hunter, celebrating his life is easier than most. It seems to me that with most people, young or old, the true mourning is for things left undone or unsaid. Maybe you could have said "I love you" one more time, or the person could have achieved more. This is especially true with a child. Hunter Kelly was a very loved person and he achieved more in his life than 99.9% of people ever will. I'm not just talking about what his parents did to help cure his disease, or even his obvious fight and iron will that should be a lesson for everyone. His life, at least to me (and I'm sure to others), demonstrated the value of life itself. He opened people's eyes to what they take for granted. Simply being alive is the greatest gift of all. All of the other things that we surround ourselves with, some important, some not, are extras. Life is first and Hunter's demonstrates that. Some people might ask "what kind of life is that", or say "I wouldn't want to live that way, but not when it came to Hunter. He made it too obvious that statements like those were wrong. It is my belief that there are signs in front of us everywhere that show how special we are and demonstrate the grandeur of life. Everyone misses them all the time. With Hunter, you couldn't help but see. Of course he should be mourned, but he is simple to celebrate. Thanks Hunter. (I didn't mean to be preachy. Sorry if I was.)

If he plays better than Bledsoe, what do you think our record will be? BTW, in spite of Boller, I have seen a few people predict a Super Bowl run for the Ravens.

Jeff Wright?

..

And Kevin Everett.

I saw that. I think it was on ESPN. They quickly cut to Bledsoe for reaction on the comment. He smirked and said he has learned to filter out all but Parcells' football knowledge. Right Drew, there are no brains involved at QB. I found Parcells' quote interesting because I've thought Bledsoe had all the arm he needs and more (even still), lacked feet, lacked brains and had heart, but maybe not enough.

I've spoken with a couple of Bears fans about Gandy. The one guy that knows the team best (others being casual fans) liked Gandy and felt bad to see him go. He said he would be good if healthy, even at starting LT. Of course this means about as much as a Bears fan who thinks he'll stink, but it was at least worth passing along.

He probably should have taken Unitas or Rice with that 7th round pick which was wasted on Pucillo. What a maroon. Most 7th rounders end up in the pro bowl. Ours end up in Cleveland.

Does this mean that everything should be centralized at the Federal level in order to avoid any imbalance on any issue? If there were cures to come out of California funded research, the patient (let's say a Nebraska native) would pay and the company selling the cure would collect. If California was one of their "investors", then California would collect too right?

The "problem" is not bad ratings. The "problem" is giving a forum to a guy that killed 300 kids and would gladly kill 300 more. That problem is rooted in the media seeing itself as "outside observers" of the news. There is merit to being an unbiased reporter of the news. Giving a forum to an individual such as this so that he may air his grievances might be considered news BEFORE HE FRIGGIN BLEW UP A BUNCH OF KIDS.

But they do not predate human nature which capitalism utilizes far better than any other economic system in history.

Where did you study Chechnyan law? There is no moral obligation. Plus it's good for business. If they leave him out there he can kill 300 more kids and ratings will go to the moon. Maybe he'll even tip them off and they can get the cameras in position. Think pay per view. At least your high fallutin intellectual theory of the medias role will be intact. Too bad for the future exploded kids, but hey we have standards to uphold. I'm sure if the Islamists win the battle in Chechnya and/or elsewhere, they will remember the media's neutrality and treat them very kindly. They'll probably write an amendment to their constitution just like our #1.