GarthP2000

Jerry, It is well known that the stars, galaxies and so forth are 'moving away', ie., moving apart. Question is, is the focus, the center from whence things are moving away from indeed the earth? Or some other point? I ask this because also keep in mind that our own sun is also 'moving away' as it were, ... with the earth and its sister planets. Thus disqualifying Earth as 'the center of the universe', as it were, a point that keeps valid the biblical creationist account of the 'expanse' moving away since the days of creation. In other words, geometrically speaking, it is the creationist tale that doesn't compute. So even if Einstien did 'fudge', that still has no effect on 1) the rest of the scientific community (see my earlier example of the Nebraska Man), and 2) the theory of evolution in general. Try again.

Beware the dark side! :D-->

Jerry, I couldn't help but notice that your post was sprinkled with phrases like 'anti-Bible' and the like, thus portraying a certain 'defiance of God/Christianity/any Higher Authority' flavor to it. Want to know why I interpret it that way? ... Because I too used to have that kind of ((ahem)) 'bulldozed' mindset. I know how that tactic/POV works, as it places an 'enmity' factor on all those who have the mitigated gaul to dispute the Biblical account. That POV/mindset has been dominant within the church ever since science really got going since Galileo, even before. And you know, and I know (if you're honest about it) that it has its roots in resisting any challenge to the Scriptures. *ANY* challenge to the Scriptures, despite any valid point raised or any complaint about science practicing the same behavior, valid or not. And for your information, I accept that there are a good number of evolutionary scientists who have their head up their nethers, and often put their professional pride above intellectual honesty. (Just like there are Creationists in the same boat.) Oh by the way, speaking of such, remember that account about the Nebraska Man (I think that's what it was) where the bones were found to be modern dog bones or some such, but that those findings were buried in order to support the evolution theory further? ... Want to know who brought that fraud to light? Young Earth Creationists or Bible believing people? Ahh, nope. Other evolutionary scientists who didn't need fraud to make their case, and had the temerity to slam dunk the lying twerps. With no apologies. (On John Schoenheit's CES tape regarding evolution, I heard him teach about that incident, yet he conveniently didn't mention that it was evolutionists who blew open the case. ... Amazing what leaving out certain information can do to influence the image and conclusion of a certain incident, hmmm?) The 'collective resistance' of scientists to creationism, even if they did do it more out of pride and anal-retentiveness than scientific objectivity, has FAR more to do with the ingrained human nature and 'pointy haired' pride, than any supposed/alleged 'anti-Christian, devil inspired' motivation of that nature; for one thing, that a good number of evolutionary scientists are Christian puts a Titanic sized hole in that boat.

Yo Jerry, 'Bulldozed' by Darwin's error huh? So you know as a *matter of proveable fact* that they didn't think things through or utilize any critical thinking skills when/if they accepted Darwin's theory? They were just _bulldozed_ (ie., swamped, coerced, intimidated, ((ahem)) *brainwashed* into accepting or believing evolution to be true? As if scientists are led into evolution, borg-style? With no dissent from the 'drones'? If that is indeed the case, then please explain to me, sir, why lively discussions, heated debates, difference of opinions, and new and different theories regarding evolution or the parts thereof continue to this day in the scientific community? All of these behaviors which just do not indicate a supposed lock-step of singularity of opinion that would be indicated by the 'bulldozed' comment. What they do indicate is a freedom to question, analyze, criticise, and so forth that genuine science is all about. And the 'one' example that you seem to believe is the only indicator of dissent in science just doesn't cover the whole field. Sorry , but no it doesn't. :D--> I love reading all the rather desperate attempts to portray science as supposedly practicing the same kind of mindless religious faith that the religious counterparts are accused of doing, thus supposedly making science no different. ... Why, it almost has a conspiratorial ring to it. (insert shifty eyes icon and James Bond music here)

Kinda reminds me of a twist of that phrase that we often see on a rear-view mirror: "Things will look bigger in their mind than they really are." :D-->

Howard, It looks like you're straining, man. Picking at gnats, as it were. Kick back with a Bud Light or something. Of course it is the weekend, so make it a Michelob

Yet Another Tactic that isn't practiced in a legal competancy hearing, .... ... and another advantage that has over the kind of crap Galen went thru.

Howard, 1) The reason I didn't give a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer to your oversimplified question was because what I believe in this area isn't something that can be packaged into an oversimplified answer. (This is one of those things where the Keep It Simple Stupid ((cough)) 'principle' just does not apply. Sorry) I gave a more detailed and clarified answer as relating to your question as to what characteristics of 'being a Christian' I do or do not identify with. And as to how many of those characteristics fit you (in relation to your point as me 'assuming' that you are these things) you are going to have to determine that for yourself. I mean, why don't you try out your own advice of 'if the shoe fits, wear it', hmmm? 2) My question of "So now does that mean anything I say about the topic is now null and void?" is based on previous experiences, both by yours truly and by other atheists, skeptics, freethinkers, etc, experiences where once it is known that someone is an atheist, skeptic, freethinker, etc., Bible believing and related religious people often tune them out as having nothing valid to say in that matter of religious discussion, for the very reason that they are atheist, etc., etc. And then again, maybe the question needn't be asked. However, having read your posts, you do seem to embrace a POV at least closely relating to the "fundamentalist, "It is written", God exists and you need to take it on faith because of the aforementioned scriptures authority standpoint" standpoint. I mean, that was what was largely taught in PFAL, right? And from what I've seen of your view, rejection of PFAL isn't part of the package. Assumption? No, merely an observation based on your previous posts. Be careful about what assumptions _you_ might draw, hmmm? So are you saying that blind faith is a basis for your conclusions? Just curious. <--- note the question, rather than an assumption. ... And no, I didn't call you stupid. Again, remember about the size of the aforementioned shoe. ;)--> Overall, nice try, but no ringer for you. Try aiming better next time.

From the fundamentalist, "It is written", God exists and you need to take it on faith because of the aforementioned scriptures authority standpoint, ... no. Valid things being found IN the Bible, well then yes. So now does that mean anything I say about the topic is now null and void? "But oh yeah, You might have to believe the Bible to think that would work for you. We wouldn't want to do THAT, now would we....???" I believe that quite a number of us already went down that road, and for those of us who no longer do, I think we might have a valid reason why. Shoes come in different sizes. As do feet. ;)-->

Yeah Howard, Randi and all them damnable atheists are corn-spiring to get rid of all the Christians of the world! It's a *Illuminati Conspiracy* I tell ya! --> (Ahh no, Randi isn't out to 'get' just Christians. He's out to 'get' anybody who propagates things supernatural or things psychic. He's an Equal Opportunity 'Getter'. :D-->) Don't know very many atheists, do ya? No, I said know them. As in get beyond the Orthodox Approved dogma that portrays with a broad stroke atheists in such demeaning and derisive terms (Communists, Nazis, secular statists, immoral people who have no sense of decency, yadayada, ... you know the drill), and it's expected of their followers to accept such terms, period. ... And for _no better reason_ than that these infidels don't accept God. ... Period. Don't believe me? Tell you what, chief. Next time you're up for a 2 week vacation, go to a town where nobody knows you, and I mean nobody. Better yet, make it a small town. Live there for about 2 weeks, get to meet the people, be nice and civilized and all (nicer than me, doncha know ;)-->), and when the topic of religion/what church you go to comes up, tell them that you're an atheist or that you don't believe in God, and that you see no reason why you should. Then 'sit back' as it were, and watch the results. As that German soldier in Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In would say, "It'll be v-e-r-r-y-y interestink!". Ie., You'll get the learning experience of your life that I'll be willing to bet will surpass even your L.E.A.D. experience, ... in spades! I've heard once from a Dan Barker speech (you know Dan Barker? He's the preacher-turned-atheist, that infidel ;)-->) that his dad once said "People talk about how hard it is to live as a Christian. Let them see how hard it is not being one." (ie., as an atheist) And pal, especially during Dubya's administration, I can easily see why this just might be the case. Oh and as to your poor attempt at dismissing/misusage of the word 'theory' (which the evolutionary theory *is*), it is quite evident that neither you nor your Creationist pals have no idea what the scientific meaning and usage of that word really is; not when all you can think of it is is as a 'guess'. And as to all the skulls that some think are the same as human skulls, perhaps they didn't look closely enough at the structure of a good many of them, nor took into account the technology used in determining the age thereof. And no I'm not referring to the Carbon dating process, since that has been obsolete for many years now, having been replaced by newer and more accurate equipment. Jack Chick's anti-evolution track might have made headway back in the early 70's when he addressed that point (I remember reading it too), but it would be blown away now. "The hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief." Bull paddies! Religious beliefs involves things spiritual or of God, Christian or otherwise. Evolution doesn't deal with whether or not there is a god or whether he created the universe. Those points are irrelevent to evolution and to science in general. Oh, and as to how Bovine--err as to how Hovind addresses as to what is a religion? When once told that the reason why evolution isn't noticeable in its change to visual observation is that it takes a LONG period of time that evolution occurs over, Hovind came back with a brilliant reply of "So time is your God then." ????? What the **** does the answer about time have to do with time being a god or not? What kind of answer is that anyway? And this is the kind of guy you'd trust as having a more intelligent answer than evolutionists? (Remember now, this is the same guy who believes that there were dragons. :rolleyes) Please tell me you can do better than that, .... *please*! Face it. The main reason why religious fundamentalists make such a row over evolution is that it runs a very serious risk of putting the whole Bible into question, and the faithful just cannot have that now, can they, ... *any* evidence be damned. P.S,. and no, every verse of the Bible has NOT been 'proven' or 'validated'. Every verse of the Bible is 'believed' by those who believe such things. ... There is a difference, y'know.

Trefor, Very interesting legal/royal system you have there. I was talking to somebody from England a few years back who explained your parliamentary politics to me, and how it differed from our political system. It seems that your 'constitutional' system of government operates more on precedent and on existing laws, and changing them in a more gradual sense than ours is. (English common law seems to be based on this mindset.) Ours seems (to me anyway) to be more according to an 'It is written' formula of Constitutional interpretation.

Why does a question like that have the distinct familiar ring similar to: "What I would like to see is someone pitching in who went through a lynching and did/does NOT view it as a terrible thing." Hhmmm? -->

Not only were there dinosaurs back before Noah's flood, George, but according to the good Dr. Hovind, there were dragons as well. Serious as a heart attack! ;)-->

Nice try Jerry, but he didn't exactly 'renounce' atheism. (And I know who you're talking about too, and I followed up further on his account) He just shifted into agnosticism. That's a far cry from 'renouncing' atheism. Gotta come up with a more solid example than that, my friend. ;)--> Besides, the argument from complexity sets an arbitrary threshold. One that has no basis for determining the design side from the non-design side of the level of complexity. Another oopsie! :D-->

Basically folks, what the anti-'cult' organizations are trying to communicate when they support this 'interventionist' activity (even with one as 'civilized' as Hassan's) is that while you're in the 'cult', you can't or are incapable of making decisions on your own. That you can't think for yourself enough to live your own life. That you are more or less, legally and mentally incompetent. That's basically what it all boils down to, regardless of what song-and-dance terminology they use. And they want to intervene to save you from yourself, since you are too 'brainwashed' to do it for yourself. Okay, since that is their goal, there is, beleive it or not, a legal way to accomplish that goal. Its called a Mental Competency Hearing, and its done in a courtroom in front of the appropriate judge, along with an attorney for both sides, and all the 'experts' that both sides wish to bring to make their case. Want to know why deprogrammers/exit counselors/interventionists won't go for it? (IMNSHO) Its because of the following: 1) BOTH sides are represented/advised by their respective attorneys, and has to be done in a public court of law. (Whereas in even the most user-friendly of exit counseling situations, the 'cultee' has nobody to represent/speak with him except himself) 2) $$$$$. Dollars. LOTS and LOTS of dollars. Moolah. High rate of cash outflow. ... And more $$$$$. And its usually done by the 'prosecuting' side. Ie., the 'deprogrammers', as it were. (Again, in 'exit counseling' cases, the cash comes from the frantic relatives, and NO financial burden is from the 'intervention consultant'. ... Yeah, what a business plan! -->) 3) And this is where the main pain in the a$$ comes in. .... Proof. They (the accusing side) MUST prove beyond at *least* a reasonable doubt (if not beyond any shadow of a doubt, which is how *I* think it should be done) that the defendant is mentally incompetent, and must be put under the 'protective care' of the accusing side. Or some other such arrangement. ... Ask any attorney. Proving your side against the defendent is a b*tch! (Whereas under Hassan's model, the burden of proof rests squarely upon 'defendent' that he is NOT under 'mind control'. Can anyone see what's wrong with this picture yet?) Now, back to the courtroom version, realize that simply bringing up the crap done in 'cults' isn't in and of itself is enough. What must be proven is that the 'cultee' is unable to think for himself such that he cannot live his life or make any decisions. And the legal standard of proving such is quite high. (Again, such a standard is painfully lacking in the Patrick/Hassan/Ross Version of a Competency 'Hearing')) Want to know something? That's the way it should be! And I'll be willing to bet even $$money$$ that many, if not ALL deprogramming/exit counseling/intervention cases would fail **miserably** (ie., within the first 15 minutes after the bailiff says "The courtroom will now come to order!") under this standard. And that many, if not all of the aforementioned deprogrammers/exit counselors/interventionists know of such legal avenues, and know of such dismal chances. Thus, their 'shortcut' tactics. And if they whine about "not being able to afford the legal route"? ... At $5,000-$8,000 per day? Plus expenses?? ... Bull paddies!! Besides, w/o the 'expenses', what is that 5-8 grande for? For simply sitting on his a$$ and gabbing anti-cult material? Puh-leeeze! That's more in one day than I make in 3 months! And I do professional work. Even without the 'kidnapping them in a van and tying them up till they break' routine, there is something still very wrong here. And keep in mind that the *vast majority* of us got out, and we didn't need any of this crap. (Getting down off of my b*tch box now)

Great Britian doesn't have a written constitution? I thought that they had one, as I heard it or something 'being constitutional' being referenced to in various articles I read about British law.

For the marketing team, huh? (tongue in cheek) ... Uh huh. ... I wonder why? ;)-->

Dove, Beautiful, just beautiful. :)--> And I love the title of the thread. Perfect for dealing with any intrusive relative and/or in-law, sanctamonious and self-righteous religious leader, and scum-sucking politician. I wonder if the Schindler family can use a few copies for possible future use, hmmm? ;)-->

Good article. ... Makes you want to go 'Hhmmm.'

No, I think you would be a 'Unitar'. :D-->

My experience with the Unitarian church (which I still attend) is definitely different than what I was used to as regards churches and religion. And it does seem like you get a dose of feeling like "Now what is it that you do believe in?" And I came to realize why it's like that, and I can appreciate the reasoning. Basically it's where the church has no Official or Orthodox dogma or doctrine as to what God is all about. They do have general principles as far as the means of achieving furtherance of personal/spiritual growth and betterment of society, but they aren't Law and the specifics what and how of what God (or anything in the spiritual world), they leave that up to you. I've heard one Unitarian minister state that, contrary to the popular viewpoint that Unitarians don't view religious or spiritual beliefs as being important, she said that they are indeed important. So important that they leave it up to you to be the final decision maker as to what you'll believe. Which is basically what it comes down to anyway, right? You're going to be the one who figures out, realizes, and make the final decision as to what views/beliefs you'll hold deep within. Plus it's more where they learn and share what they have learned to be true or valid, regardless of what religious/secular source they may get it from. Which I find to clearly be a *refreshing* change from the dogmatic, "This is what The Church believes and you are expected to fall in line with those beliefs, or else goodbye!" attitude of more fundamentalist churches, even if a sizeable number of those selfsame churches aren't that anal as to the enforcement of that mentality. And that change does take some getting used to at first. Perhaps it's 'too different' as that goes for some. Perhaps some people want/'need' more structure/authority in their religion so that they feel comfortable with it, or to feel that it can be called a religion. ..... I don't. Been there, done that, burnt the "Bow down before Orthodoxy!" t-shirt, be it made by TWI or any mainline church. I now trust and respect my own brain and individual conscience to do that anymore. Anywho, that's my experience.

I believe the same question can honestly be put to VPW's legacy, ehh?

Well Raf, that's what you get for reading World News Daily all the time. :D-->

For the love of Pete, guy. Where did you get your information? You mean you have heard nothing about the eating disorder that caused her heart to stop? How come there was nothing in the news about any broken bones, even on Faux-- err Fox? And spare me the 'media is tightly controlled by liberals' line please. Besides, there is nothing that the media would gain by lying about Terri's situation. Sources please? Oh, and realize that Micheal 'took up' with his common law wife *after* Terri went comatose. Sorry, but there is way too many holes in the 'Micheal is such a bad man' song-and-dance to have any leaning against his account of what Terri wanted. "The judiciary is certainly guilty of being complicite in an act of murder." Gee, I thought that they are avoiding being the 'activist judges' that conservatives usually whine about? Plus they are ruling according to the law. I do find it interesting that through all the howling by the religious right, they avoid like the plague the possibility that Terri just might not want to live in this condition. Having the right to decide one's death in situations like this has never been viewed favorably by these people.

Another very interesting, and honest, article (titled 'Schiavo: case closed (Keith Olbermann)') about this situation (and I'll be willing to wager one you won't see on Faux :-) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/ Frankly, I'm more and more siding with Micheal Schiavo, the more crap I hear coming from the right-to-lifer side. Here's the Daily Show's take on the matter, and I think it shows the level of ridiculousness that this thing has gone to: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/03/25.html#a2137 -->