GarthP2000

LII (See if you can figure it out. )

67

Too bad we can't make this like a '24' style countdown. ((dunn ... dunn ... dunn ... dunn))

Great! An attempt to describe Atheism by two Muslims and a New Agey sounding guy. <_< I gots a suggestion. Go ask an atheist, nay, several atheists, what atheism is. Go to a few well known atheist websites, and check there. Look at Richard Dawkins's site. Sam Harris's site. Notice I gave you _several_ sources to check out, not just one. Because, for one thing, aside from the standard "We don't believe in a god or gods" refrain, you'll get a better picture of where we atheists come from as far as what we 'believe', if you ask a lot more than just one. In other words, there is no 'holy book', no one doctrine, no one required practices or rituals, etc., that we all hold. This is a lot unlike many religions whereas they all (more or less) have one authority, one holy book, one doctrine/dogma, etc. This is one of the results of independent, individual free-thinking. View it good or bad as you will, that's how it is. I, myself, view it to be a good thing, as it allows for getting past all the dogmatic rubbish and getting closer to the truth on our own, ... rather than believing 'the Truth©' because some 'higher authority' tells us to, and that's it. Hope that clears up some of your misunderstanding.

"Can you remind me what I was researching????" Uuumm, the accuracy of the Word like it hasn't been known since the first century? ((ducking)) ... :)

Cindy, Looks like the countdown will end right before Christmas. So looks like you folks will *really* be celebrating come the holidays. Corn-gratulations on your achievements!

Apt point, PurpleDays. Doesn't say much about some people's (the ones who they are afraid of) 'dedication' to freedom of religion, does it? <_<

... so then she chewed out the cop for his mistake. Heck! That wouldn't really be that much of a surprise if it happened! ;)

?? There are only 5 puppies now? :(

Aawwwww, 7 cuties!

I just _love_ it when people get their panties in a wad when one of us e-b-i-l infidels says public things that question their god, even when their response is in some anecdotal form. <_< Oh, by the way, Hawking's findings challenging Newton's religious views relating to science only shows science's flow of discovery, ... that it continuously builds upon, and at times challenges previous findings and theories. ... ahhh Yes. Such is the wisdom of man. Continuously moving forward and upwards. ... As opposed to religious writings and doctrinal foundations, which are often in stasis from when they were first written down.

They didn't charge you for it, did they? I mean, you already paid for the info transfer service, so you shouldn't have to pay for it again.

:eusa_clap: A-yup!

(GarthP2000 stays real quiet here, as he had a leisure suit early in his first WOW year, ... and actually thought back then that it was kinda cool. :blush: )

"our identity document" My driver's license works well enough for me, thanks.

First off, Jerry, my 'peeping Tom' crack was a joke, and I thought you'd see it that way. Apparently not, and for my side of that misunderstanding, I apologize. Seriously, I don't really think that you're a peeping Tom. Two, while scientists can be, and often are, biased, emotional human beings with flaws, science (the process) is far better than that. It's that way because its based upon not only observation and continued study and testing, but also coincides with already proven mathematical, physical, biological, and medical laws and facts. And even with the facts that may have been uncovered by the sources you indicate, they are far outweighed in amount by findings of human sexuality being more hard-wired than you think, even when you take into consideration those who 'have it both ways'. Invariably, those who are either gay or straight naturally, as much as they might try to 'do it' the other way, are still biased in their natures to their sexual orientation. This isn't even dealing with findings in the animal world, despite Jerry's discounting of that. Oh, I've read through your two articles, Jerry, and they are dealing with adolescent development. Straight kids go through a much similar development; its all with them experimenting in the sexual world. But by the time they reach adulthood, it becomes more set; gay or straight. Those articles made no mention that any 'artificial consistency' has been injected into the accepted studies. That's _your_ conclusion. Oh, by the way, it seems that Web MD hasn't really given up on this idea of gay sexual orientation. Know why? Check out this article from Web MD. Man! Talk about pointing the finger at what's behind homosexuality! And Jerry, ever hear the bruhaha, the 'conspiracy theory' about how the scientific world is biased for homosexuality based upon intimidating influence from the gay activists? Feh! Nothing more than church fed propaganda. I too heard that song-and-dance in TWI, and there is _absolutely_ no evidence of said back room arm twisting. The evidence backing this claim up wasn't coming from them, and neither is it coming from any of the main stream, conservative churches either. Jerry, I've been down that road where religion backed 'science' claims that homosexuality can be cured, that Intelligent Design trumps evolution, and quite a few other things that would make any reputable scientist puke, and would make for good, Texas public school approved, 'science' class. <_< And yes, I reject all of that, because it is all based upon fear. Fear at challenging religious fundamentalism, fear of challenging all the millions of people who are still loyal to it, fear at challenging the 'integrity' of the bible to any serious degree. It's the same kind of fear that we in TWI went through before we just had it up to here, and told them to go 'f' themselves and walked away. I've seen this kind of 'Fear of the Lord' in a good number of other fundamentalist religions as well. And that fear still has a very sizable mistrust (which is undeserved) towards science; often pitting science against religion. Consider _that_ if you dare.

Jerry, First off, my ten will get your one, you'll see/read this post, and maybe you'll respond and maybe you won't. You decide. Two, a strong suggestion, if I may. Next time you accuse me of doing something (ohh, like saying that I have decided that you're simply not thinking because you don't agree with me), please back your presumption (yes Virginia, that IS what you're doing) with a little, ohh fact? ... Because believe it or not, what I'm doing is not any different than what most people do here in this regard, what _you_ have done in this regard: Voicing your point of view in regards to a particular topic, and challenging various point(s) that one finds ... out-to-lunch. That is not automatically the same as a "deciding that you're simply not thinking because you don't agree with me" routine. ... M-m-kay? And now, I'll give a short(er) synopsis on where my basis for civil rights for homosexuals/black/religious people comes from. (This is so you don't have to wrack your brain going through _all_ of those 'pointless' (uh-huh) points. <_< ) I'm coming at this from the point that, according to lawful, Constitutionally based consideration of equal protection of the law, ... skin color, sexual orientation, religion, hair color (if one has hair that is), have no bearing whatsoever when it comes to equal protection under the law; when it comes to having civil rights. ... Period! (Now if one doesn't have any hair, ... too bad, so sad. ... JUST kidding! :) ) Thus your making the distinction between civil rights for people who "are born that way" (like skin color), from civil rights for people who "make a (lifestyle) choice" (like religion, or *supposedly* homosexuality) ... from the standing of civil rights/equal protection of the law, ... is irrelevent. Makes no difference. The only difference in this regard is if said person violates the rights of others/breaks the law/becomes a clear and present danger to others. Now you see what my point is? End of short(er) synopsis. Oh, and just because you've 'seen' homosexuals behave in a heterosexual manner (What? You're being a peeping tom?) is a *very* weak argument for 'proving' (*snort*) that they aren't gay from birth/nature. There have been a good number of people who were gay who have practiced straight sex, who are still gay. Isolated (even if clear) examples make for a very weak case against the abundance of scientific arguments that are based on a lot more than that to the contrary. See this collection of links that show the abundance of scientific evidence of what I'm saying. Sorry chief, but science trumps the bible here. Jerry, we all have had our periods when we didn't/don't 'think'. (I know that I have, and no doubt there are a LOT of people here who would *readily* jump on that bandwagon. ;) ) But seriously, being blindly loyal to religious/political/other dogma is but a classic example of this non-thinking, and like I said, I've been there before, so I do speak and relate from experience here. And it's not that you never think. I know better than to believe that as well. But some of the arguments you brought up here are Yet More of the Same-old, Same-old arguments I hear from Christian fundamentalists every day, and they aren't based on independent thinking. No they're not. It's based upon being blindly loyal to what they're taught, even if it is posed as 'science'. Sorry to put it to you that way, but a LOT of what religious people say about homosexuality is based upon fear and ignorance. It is. No other way I can put it, and this needs to be said, respect for religion/people's feelings or no. Still want to be mad at me? Fine. But you try this style of reasoning on the gay people whom you will undoubtedly associate with, ... Feh! And you think that *I'm* rude?? ... You ain't seen nothing yet, guy, ... 6'4" or no.

Oh, one other thing, if I may 'get my panties in a knot' one more time. ;) You saith "Do you have some special gift that allows you to see other people's hearts and motives? I don't think so." Remember that bible verse that saith "For out of the abundance of the heart a man speaketh?" A lot of times when a person gets all defensive and say "Well, you don't know what's in my heart!", many times they don't realize that people 'judge what's in their heart' because of what what they already said or did. And heck, there have been a number of occasions where you 'judged my motivations' in this thread, so if you can do it, ... ie., you were just calling it like you thought you saw it. ... guess what. So can I. Caio!

Oh, and I'm getting _my_ panties in a knot? Really? Let's see some of your emotion-based responses, hmmmmm? 1) This is probably not the best place to start posting after having been absent for over a year, but I just can't help it. (Indicates somewhat of a lack of self-control perhaps?) 2) This is, imo, one of those issues that will never get resolved, partly because proponents on each side refuse to respect each other's opinions. (Hmmm, and how much participation in this have _you_ contributed?) 3) Another pet peeve of mine is the consistent equating of the gay rights movement to the civil rights movement. (No emotion here, ehhh?) 4) Insisting that these two principles are the same is not only dishonest, it's offensive to some. (Ohhh, ... like _you_?) Tell me something, guy. Is all of this nothing more than you getting your panties in a knot? Besides, you've seen my posts. My style remains (largely, and unapologetically) the same. And you have agreed with a lot of my seemingly 'panties in a knot' style posts for a good long time. Hhmmmmm, no complaints from you there. So why be rather selective now? I just love it when I have people _pretentiously_ (and selectively ;)) 'get offended' at my 'manner of communication', all from the basis of civility, yet they have no problem when I aim this same kind of scathing fire at those whom they oppose. ... Civility then goes out the window, ehh? Yah! <_<

Jerry, Sorry chief, but you still miss the mark. Several times. Allow me to show you some examples of such flaws: You: Really? Cause earlier you _explicitely_ stated thusly: "Granting equality for ethnic groups does not automatically mean we should grant equality to gays and lesbians." Errmm, yes it does, Jerry. Equality for one group of adult citizens equals equal rights for other adult citizens. Get used to the idea. Oh, and the particular black ministers I've heard were opposed to equal rights for homosexuals _because_ they were homosexual; because the ministers veiwed homosexuality as an abomination sinful to God. For that specific reason. Here you are espousing a 'less filling' version of the same thing. But yes, civil rights for homosexuals *is* equivelent to civil rights on race. For the same reason I gave above. Ie., "Equality for one group of adult citizens equals equal rights for other adult citizens." (<-- a great sign-in quote for a Facebook page, I might add. :) ) Equating civil rights for gays to/with civil rights for blacks/other ethnic groups IS equal protection under the law. Else you don't have equal protection under the law. ... Ask any civil rights attorney, ... a _good_ one please! Jerry, read what I said again. And read it in the context of my overall post. The point re: Christianity is from the standpoint of being born that way / not born that way. The example communicating, if one is born a Christian, they get to enjoy equal civil rights. If not, no equal rights. ... Based on a flawed premise. All of which has no bearing on whether one has equal civil rights. Tell me something. Is not challenging what one is taught as biblical instruction really thinking for oneself? Think about that one for a minute. See, I can speak from experience here, as there were a lot of biblical concepts/teachings that I made myself closely examine/challenge/step back from/etc., and it wasn't easy when I still had this fear in my head of God being *angry* that I dared do so. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who is still held in that kind of grip, isn't doing too much of thinking anyway. And a lot of religious people base this opposition to homosexuality and to civil rights for homosexuals _precisely_ on this kind of fear of getting God mad at them. (And before I proceed any further, if the shoe fits in this regard, ... tie your shoe laces.) So why, if he's _known_ to be gay, should he be treated differently to begin with? The same question has undoubtedly been asked regarding black people (and no doubt, you probably seen answers to that question to the affirmative that would consign the answerers to the loony ward. ie., "Cuz blacks r inferior". "Cuz they rn't as intelli-junt as us white peeple.", or especially those who twist evolution to portray blacks in that manner. :-\) Jerry, you're bringing up are straw man / red herring arguments. All which have nothing to do with the importance, the 'rightness' if you will, of civil rights and equality for homosexuals, whether they use the civil rights model that blacks used or not. Hell, you ought to be glad they are using that model, as it is a successful one. :-) Oh, and no, I didn't miss this: Then your conclusion upends your initial premise that civil rights and gay rights aren't on the same footing. Yes it does, as civil rights shouldn't only apply to some groups and not to others. Rather, civil rights deal with equality. Period.

Jerry, time to wake up and smell the Reality, dude! "I have to agree with those who point out that homosexuality cannot be equated to drinking. Homosexuality is clearly and consistently denounced in the Scripture as sinful. I believe "abomination" is the work used in the OT, which makes it not only sinful but disgustingly so. So for the progressives to accuse those who oppose gay marriage as narrow-minded or backward is unfair." Well Jerry, ya know something. Just because you believe that the Bible calls homosexuality an 'abomination' doesn't remove such determinations from being rendered as backwards. That might seem 'unfair' to you, but then again, consider how homosexuals feel about having what they do as being rendered as 'an abomination' (which is an admitedly strong term, stronger than 'unfair'). "Another pet peeve of mine is the consistent equating of the gay rights movement to the civil rights movement. As an African American and a staunch believer in the inherent rightness of the civil rights movement, I must point out that this is analogy only holds water if you believe that people are born gay or lesbian. I for one, don't believe that." Well, exccuuussee me. So just because _you_ don't believe that gays are born that way somehow invalidates, _for the whole homosexual group_, the need for civil rights? And since when did the fact that you're black kick into this? Do some blacks feel that the whole concept of civil rights somehow belongs to them? Exclusively? I've heard some black religious leaders act pretty much the same way, with this "Hey! That's _mine_!" attitude when homosexuals (and atheists even!) start using terms like 'civil rights' and 'equality' as well. ... Hey kid! Time to share the toys! "For one there is the whole Anne Heich fiasco. For those who have forgotten Anne, she was Ellen Degeneres' partner when Ellen came out of the closet. In an interview with Oprah, Ellen affirmed she'd always been lesbian, but Anne said she'd been heterosexual until she met Ellen. A short time later, Anne fled their love nest and ran screaming to a guy. She is now once again heterosexual, although probably not mentally or emotionally stable." Wow, gee! *One* example of (what's called) a switch hitter, and all the increasing scientific evidence of homosexuality being naturally born in certain people goes straight out the window? Ummm, what about all the (increasing) evidence where homosexuality is even occuring in the animal world? "In short, I don't believe people are not "born" gay. It's a lifestyle choice. On the other hand, people are born African-American, Latino, or Asian. Granting equality for ethnic groups does not automatically mean we should grant equality to gays and lesbians. Insisting that these two principles are the same is not only dishonest, it's offensive to some." Oh I just *love* this little jewel. Ok guy, let's continue playing this game of yours. Gays aren't born that way, ergo they _don't_ get to enjoy equality under the law. (Where some people came up with _that_ illogic, I can only attribute to drugs. :-\), whilst black/other non-white people are born their way, so they get to enjoy equality under the law. With me so far? ... Good. What about religion? Since you weren't born a Christian (No! You weren't. You were *taught* it!), ... according to the same logic, ... ... you, as a Christian, should not enjoy the same rights as anyone else. Right? ... Right? Stop and think about it for once, will you please? And I don't give a _damn_ who is 'offended' because gays/lesbians get equality under the law. Stop and think about _that_. Getting mad because someone gets equality under the law? Yeah? Well there were plenty of people who got 'offended' because blacks got equality under the law, and even they used bible verses to back them up. They wore white sheets too! And taking the "But I think that the fundies s*ck sometimes" argument do little to give you the 'Fair and Balanced' image. Equal civil rights apply to ALL. It _has_ to be that way. That's the beauty of the Constitution. And it sure as hell beats any 'godly' government I've ever seen talked about from a lot of Christians. Oh and here's a question for you for bonus points: Why _shouldn't_ homosexuals/lesbians have equal civil rights, hmmm? From a point of law, that is? From a point of ethics? The only basis you bring it up is from the religious/'it offends me' standpoint. ... A standpoint which should have _no_ basis in law.

And make sure you never, _never_ tick off the flight attendants. ... Unless you want to watch one curse out the passengers and slide down the escape chute.

Hiya all. Is there anyone here who has ever heard/seen/known Susan Powell? She was active in TWI back in the 70's, a WOW sent to Huntsville, AL back in 75-76, and she played _really_ good violin (rumor was that she maybe played on the Way Orchestra back then perhaps?). Anywho, last I heard, she went to Vienna, Austria to play in their orchestra. Yes, she was that good. (Well, *I* thought so anyway. :) ) Any information would be very helpful. She was one of the bright spots and loving people that existed in TWI back then, and I'd be willing to lay $solid$ money that she left TWI well before it imploded. Thanks in advance.

Ergo, Paw has purchased an iPad manufactured in Luxembourg to post as the 500,000th post. Well? ... Do I get the Kewpie doll?