YellowLinesandArmadillos

Better yet, take it out of their federal payroll withholding with penalty for administration if they don't sign up.

I know, I don't think I can watch another Bills game under this regime... pathetic.

WTF???

According to what norm? Other than atheism, because then it is just circular reasoning as defined by itself. Justify it some more for me. I may still disagree, but I would argue that rationality of belief is anything that allows someone to distinguish between current norms of society so that they can survive with a modicum of happiness. If your are talking about empirical rationalization. Then I would agree, belief in a higher power does not fit the norm of empiricism and therefore is not rational according to that definition, but neither is empiricism ultimately, because it can only result in numbers that infinitely regress but never actually describe reality and therefore by definition is irrational too or at least can not prove its rationality and if it can because of the limits of the link between perception through the brain to consciousness or sole cannot be established its rationality is questionable... though we depend on both empiricism and faith to make "rational" decisions every day. Rational defined as making reasonable decisions based on our understanding of the events and information we have access to.

You truly are an idiot, you don't even know what I believe, yet you are arrogant enough to criticize something of which you don't even have any assumed factual basis to back up your statements. I have just acknowledge that I believe in God, anything more specific than that I have not said, but since your little mind cannot handle any kind of discussion of logic. Though you purport yourself to be rational because you think that you are an atheist, but can't even adequately argue coherently any reasons that justify why you believe what you believe/ Man you are walking cluster. How about taking a class on just the definition of rational as it pertains to the English connotation of the term as it is used in the current century as well as its derivatives used through out history. Then talk to me about belief and its rationality within human society....

Go look up the definition of rational. Once again, believer or not, you still have no clue about which you write. Go back to school.

I am not, but in a given age where belief in Zeus is the norm, rationality as a human (which is usually defined in coping with societal norms and getting along) could be rational. ?Once again, you seem to be confusing rationality with being able to prove something concretely. Big difference... I suggest you go luck up the full definition of the word and take Psych 101 before your answer back.

I heard that it was more than one.

I know a lot of engineers and they are in the military right now.... Not sure if that is the problem but I know a lot of second and third generation engineers. Hmmm, could be the pay scale?

It could be depending on the form, the century in which the belief is held and the definition of the deity. No more rational than the crap you have been throwing out their claiming that your sense of logic is rational.

I admire his stamina, but I think we are only feeding his psychosis. On another page someone questioned if he was a Scientologist. Even if he is, which I doubt, his training in logic sucks. May he went to one of those self-help Tony Robbins type classes... I am not sure, but there is definitely a cog missing here. We can't even get him to agree or understand a definition of something without him changing subjects. His twisting of other persons beliefs into what he thinks they are, rather than asking for their understanding or belief is ignorant. Yes, the church's and synagogues often have specific dogma that some people disagree with, but he doesn't ask those questions and yet he can't fully describe his own belief except to insult you and say it is that it is not what he thinks your belief is. What a colossal waste of a mind and high level of energy. Keep up the good work with him, maybe he will learn something down the road from it, though unlikely now.

Agreed and the premise of its comparison is still to attack religion, instead of letting atheism stand on its own two feet and justify itself without the comparison. My making the comparison and ad-hominid attacks on religion, it reveals the writer's own insecurities and arrogance toward religion and his own insecure belief in atheism. Though I agree organized religion is full of hippocracy, however belief in or faith in a God does not. And though I could make a much better argument then this for atheism, I think that a lot of atheists are well meaning people but way too self-reliant and therefore tend to be anti-humanist in practice though not in thought. That being this attitude I am pointing out is not relegated solely to nor exclusive to all atheists. Many religionists exhibit such behavioral arrogance. Which brings us back to Dellaspew, here is someone who is both arrogant and ill-informed and though I enjoyed reading the paste, I can only wonder if he actually understood the implications of what he pasted....not!

Oh please get over yourself... in fact, I don't think he came up with that. It has been around for a while now...

The only thing Grayson did offensive was the overused line comparing Republicans to Nazis.... The rest is hyperbole and he did it during the speech and debate section on the floor. Much worse has been said by both sides.... so please stop the Republican whining unless it is a Pinot Grigio... That being said the name calling on both sides is silly and does little to get to the meat of the debate. I say send all the house members to their rooms till they can come out and be nice to each other.

Really, he is a figment of his imagination and can't prove otherwise. P.S. There are no absolutes that can be proved/proven and to the extent that there are absolutes, we can never know them.... That is why there is a need for faith.

Reasonable question, gets down to what is considered a public good or necessity and what is a luxury good, something I can do without. I know that is a value judgment, but healthcare like phone service is increasingly considered a public good. Also, part of my frustration is the lack of transparency in the system as others have argued. Insurance cos, doctors and hospitals like Verizon nickle and dime you to death and you can never tell what the real cost is going to be till long after the service is rendered. Luckily in the cell phone era there is real competition and you have other options. In the insurance era, nothing is very clear and options have dwindled in the last twenty years and new carriers in the market place have become slim and non. P.S. I left Verizon for a new carrier that allows me to hook in with wireless hotspots.

What we think is real by whatever form of reasoning and what can be proven are two different things. Even science cannot prove anything. I think a lot of things are real and for my daily functioning it is necessary to act as if. That doesn't mean I can prove anything. Once again, this whole reality deal could be a fantasy or some other form of conscious, subconscious hallucination. I don't have any indication that it is, but one never knows and I cannot prove anything different. For my own sanity and practicality I have to act as this life deal is real. Yet I still can't prove any of it.... because of the limitations of science or any other form of reasoning to describe, understand or prove the connection between my senses, my brain and my consciousness or sole is at this moment is impossible your assertion that atheism is a better form of belief than any other is inane and nonsensical. I only state that I have a belief in God. Furthermore, I have not described my belief and your attempts to describe or ascribe details to my belief is insulting. So go away and learn grammar, spelling and logic before you post again.

Neither is reality or atheism, so what is your point. You are just pointing out the null-hypothesis.... remember it is only a hypothesis and cannot be proven either... The best you can come up with is an infinite regression argument and the best folks who believe in God can come up with is faith or circular reasoning (inductive reasoning) neither is wrong or right, but to say one thing is unprovable and not the other makes no sense... I agree, God can't be proven, that is not the point and neither can atheism, faith or belief is a personal thing and does not require proof... it is experiential.... hence why in our experience discussing these issues with you DC Tom, I and a few others who even believe the way you do have come to the conclusion that you are a dumb sh$t.

My guess is he is speaking in tongues... No one can understand him but himself and even that is debatable.

Duh.

I would add a couple of things, and question the EPA deal because of the unscrupulous drug companies are liable to put something in that both cures us and kills us at the same time. Not sure the EPA does its job perfectly, but there has gotta be a way to do both. EPA approval, but no limits on what people can take. Approval limits liability of the drug co. If not up to a standard the drug co is liable though not illegal.

I agree the questions given TOs history are probably legit, but why not ask them of Trent Edwards, the quarterback of DJ, not a wide receiver. That being said, I thought TOs response was perfect for TO. In this case, anything he says, look some of the headlines afterwards anyway, is going to be used against him. Keeping his mouth shut was the best thing he could do for both himself and the team. "T.O. barely contains frustration" Toronto Sun Owens begins to stir the pot Toronto Globe Rochester D&C reports: 'Owens is frustrated,

Okay so we all agree that problem is the cost we are paying. We do disagree somewhat on the cause. I would argue the oligopoly of insurance companies are the reason for the problem and the idea of insurance itself without strict regs. I do not think the problem is government involvement necessarily. But the current gov't involvement aggravates the problem and should be changed. The argument against gov't involvement is that it can never provide the right kind because it is too bureaucratic for lack of more descriptive word, but that still doesn't solve the problem of private insurance and its collusionary tendencies forcing costs up and prescriptive tendencies of coverage. And if you got rid of both, then Doctors and their natural tendency to go where the money is would naturally become prescriptive (capitalism and the laws of diminishing returns and profit optimization). So in order to spread out services to everyone, some government sponsored support for medical care is necessary. Say, a government reinsurance program with risk pooling and a strong AG to go after WFA.

Given the chance, my five year old will practice it at the drop of a hat. Conversation, Son: Dad, I have to go pee, Dad: we have to find a bathroom. Son: I gotta go bad, Dad: okay, we will find one fast, hold on: Son: But dad there is a tree... walll... bush right over there..... and points. Depending on how far I am from anything and if anyone is around he goes on the spot.... when he was younger, he didn't even ask... just pulled the drawers down and went where he stood. I did that later in life when I was eighteen and in bars.

Don't justify yourself, just keep throwing insults. It is much more fun given his response of... "now I am not, but what are you" two year old styled argument... Though I think I am insulting my two year old somehow.