YellowLinesandArmadillos

Look who is insulting... we have repeated the arguments, yet we get no understanding and a repetition of the same old, same old out of you... please go away. The previous twelve year old insult for you may be more a complementn.

My question and possible justification for the investigation is Did they use Government Funds to send the letters and did they report it in their lobbying disclosure report. If not the investigation is justified and the slant on this information O'Connell's whining is disingenuous. Otherswise, Humana, though the letter is disgusting and a bunch of chicken little tactics, is probably within it rights to send the letter.

That is probably the safest place the admin could put this guy without making many waves... I.e., they tried to stick him in a corner and hoped he would go away. Apparently, he is not enough in the corner.

I can't say anything pleasant about this stupidity, Bachman statement is irrelevant, but this kind of stuff is stupid. P.S. If the census workers had any kind of brains the would have contact a couple of local to help them out.

Want to go ride bikes?

I could for a minute and then my attention would turn elsewhere. P.S. How do you know you are talking to someone with ADD?

I understand but I think you more correctly should use the modifier "How" does it work the way it does... " why" is a question of motivation and something that begs the question for a higher power or the answer because it can in a scientific manner.... How asks the question how does something work or function. Just saying

Stop asking why, maybe, asking how... no never, that is why I don't believe Science and Faith are mutually exclusive. Why begs the question of causality which even science really can't answer, it just comes up with a statistical probability. That being said, understanding the how is key, the why may or may not come and for me is more an act of faith. The how I will always continue to explore.

Exactly!

So much for theory of evidence, now we are on to theory of creation, though hard to separate the two. My head hurts.

Great book on the subject, a who done it by Colson Whitehead called "The Intuitionist," about an murder on an elevator and the debate between empiricism and intuition.

Exactly, couldn't have said it better myself.... not sure about the humanist... he could be animist or some other ist.

Too many unexplained coincidences, things working out when they probably shouldn't have and unconditional love and guidance from some folks that I didn't think even understood.... The final deal was the miracle of having my first child born... can't tell you why and you are right, I am basing my faith on things that I cannot adequately explain with words but yet I still feel a connection to... I came to the conclusion or delusion that crap happens and the faith allows you to get through any situation and know that no matter what happens outwardly, deep within inwardly I can deal... Earlier in life I wasn't so sure, wasn't so sure I would make it to 25 years old. You witness and survive a few things and suddenly you realize that there is a purpose to life and probably one afterward.

Just because we can't prove any of it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist and from a practical standpoint, I have to have some faith that it does, though I can never prove it or know if or how close to the truth I am. That is my point, which is why I have faith in, not to be specific, a higher power. That is where acceptance of faith comes in, but you keep struggling with the need to expect absolute results from your search for knowledge. I think we all need to keep searching and getting a better understanding of our world, just not expect that we can prove it.... no big deal really.

Pick a voice... any voice... where she stops nobody knows

Now you are learning about logic and reasoning and the flaws in even the scientific method as to the establishment of truth! The rest of what you wrote was nonsensical and incoherent. That mother nature you smoke to put you to sleep get the best of you?

Yeh, LOL I wasn't sure how to reply except to call him a name, but I am having too much fun arguing logic, especially with a non-believer, which I once was, he probably can't throw at me anything that I haven't at one time or another already considered.

Although I will grant you in epistemology there are justifications that one uses to try and validate one's beliefs. But they are still beliefs and assumptions and from a practical standpoint, I accept on faith your existence on this board. To do otherwise would then require me to question my own sanity????

Opinion only, good and bad are value judgments only and therefore either opinion or faith based and either way don't make something any more or less valid unless backed by definitional truths.

Actually you can try to give me reasons of your existence, but you could just be a figment of my imagination or I yours. We are only typing on a keyboard right now and that is a big assumption to. I perceive, but cannot prove that I am typing on a key board. The only things that can be proven are things by definition and not animate or concrete objects. Things can be proven by definition, such as the color black as I define it and perceive it. 1+1 can be defined as equaling two, although some analytical geometrists on this board have already claimed they make it equal anything they damn well please.

Ahhh, now you get into an interesting example. First off for practical purposes I would stipulate that Colorado is not on the east coast. But from a proof standpoint, my first question back to you is define coast and east? Lets assume the US exists for right now.... we can discuss the provability of its existene later.

True IMO opinion, but just because something is believed to have occurred once and something is reported to have occurred many times does not make either any more or less valid. You just have put a value judgment on something that you believe to have been repeated many time achieve the same or similar result, but not proven, unless you did the experiment yourself, a million. On top of which, you have not establish causality which according to the scientific method you can't, just a probability which still could be incorrect or misinterpreted... Once again, either circular reasoning or infinite regression arguments that don't actually get to the truth of anything, just opinion, assumptions and therefore faith.

Ah, the old tried and true actual experience argument... nice try, back to the old circular reasoning form of arguing.. so is your experience based in reality? You cannot prove it to me because you cannot prove to me that you exist, so I would have to take your argument about scientific experience on faith, because perceptually, I, nor you can prove each other's existence.... and as a result the validity of experience, whatever form it might take... Nice try though and a rather light weight one if you ask me.

The problem with your statement is that since science is a process of infinite regression and the length of that regression is unknowable and unprovable, you can not state with any certainty how far down the path you actually are and how much faith any one of your assumptions require. Therefore either according to your argument all knowledge is relative and unprovable or it cannot be fully known and therefore requires faith. Either way neither can explain your existence or for that matter mine... You could be just a pathetic recurring on-line narcissistic dream or just a way for me to waste time.

See your definition of religion or belief I would argue is stagnant in it you imply that science and religion are mutually exclusive, I don't. I believe that science helps us better understand our creation and faith, despite the dogma and denial of some members of some religions. So don't lump all people of faith in with the rigid interpretation of creationism as espoused by the right wing knuckle draggers. And keep up the denial of your own faith in your scientific assumptions.