Raf

"Did you do anything fun Saturday night?" Well, all the guys from my barbershop quartet are dead, so, no, not really. You know, if you ask Kristen out, from Statistics, she'd probably say yes. That's why I don't ask. Too shy, or too scared? Too busy!

The soundtrack album for this movie reached number one on the US Billboard 200 chart. It was the first film soundtrack to reach number one without containing a single original song.

But since he's busy... The stars are all my friends Till the night time ends So I know I'm not alone When I'm here on my own Isn't that a wonder? When you're alone You're not alone Not really alone

"This echoes of TWI." You know what echoes of TWI? Bogus comparisons that seem to illustrate a principle but actually mask another agenda. You know, like Eve's first mistake was questioning, and that masked the agenda of getting us to not question TWI. If he wants to talk about Ferguson, bring it. But to imply (which he did) that protesting Ferguson was hypocritical because it was wrong, and mask it as a matter of priorities... it's wrong to protest against a cop who did something right while staying silent about beheaded children... that's despicable. It's despicable because of its false dichotomy: one cause is a true injustice; the other is not. One cause should elicit our sympathy; the other should not. One cause is a true outrage; the other is not. Anyone who wants to support the police in Ferguson, go right ahead. I'm not going to argue with you. But to take for granted that you're right, to dismiss the validity of the concerns of black America as illustrated by what happened there, and to do so using the heads of innocent children as props...? Here's the argument of the opening post, rephrased, in a nutshell: If you don't believe Darren Wilson was innocent and that Michael Brown deserved to be shot and killed AND, acting on your failure to believe in Wilson's innocence, you find the shooting of Michael Brown an injustice worth protesting, BUT you have not done something to protest [unconfirmed reports of] the beheading of Christian children by ISIL, then you are a hypocrite. What the bloody hell? One has nothing to do with the other. The "hypocrisy" label is misapplied and grossly unfair. And pointing that out somehow makes me like Martindale or Geer (both of whom would have backed Officer Wilson, I guarandamntee it)? Vile and disgusting. That Skyrider doesn't see it, surprises me. That Allan doesn't see it... doesn't surprise me at all. I KNOW I'm on the right side of an issue when he opposes me.

You must not care about beheaded kids in Iraq, Rocky. Wait, sorry, beheaded CHRISTIAN kids. Because that's relevant.

would It have made a difference if the victims were Christian women? And if so, why?

ISIL just executed 150 Muslim women as the world shrugs. juxtaposed with Christians in America who are in a full-scale panic over whether gay people will be allowed to get married

Another set of definitions: This is a tough one to grapple with, and it depends a great deal on what is meant by "beliefs." I believe that the Earth travels around the sun, but is that a "belief"? No, it's a reality that I recognize. I'm wearing a maroon shirt right now. That's not a belief. It's a reality I recognize. I have a lot of realities I recognize about the cause, nature and purpose of the universe, along with some gaps, but the facts that I recognize (the Big Bang, the cooling, the age of the sun and earth, etc. are not properly "beliefs" in this context. On the complicated subject of "First Cause," I have no belief. Literally. I don't know what it was. Does that leave room for God? Only insofar as EVERY gap in knowledge leaves room for God, until the gap is filled and the question is answered. I have a belief that when we determine what the first cause was, it will be discovered to be natural and in keeping with the laws of physics, etc. Is that a religious belief? I'd argue no: it's a reasonable extrapolation based on what is known now. It could be proven wrong, but I would be surprised. Does a reasonable extrapolation require a religious "leap of faith"? I think not. But that's my opinion. In any event, the second half of this definition CLEARLY does not apply to atheism. Atheism is not a religion. There are no beliefs or practices that are agreed upon. There is one answer to one question: Do you believe there is a God? In other words, do you accept or reject the affirmative claim "There is a God"? If your answer is yes, you are a theist. If no, you are an atheist. This is not a KNOWLEDGE claim. It is a belief claim. You can have a high degree of confidence in your position, but most people would agree that they don't have irrefutable proof of their position. So, no, under this definition, it would be VERY difficult to call atheism a religion. You could have religions that are atheistic in content. But it's the OTHER ELEMENTS that make it a religion, not the atheism. Lots of Buddhists are atheists. They don't believe in a God, but they believe in things most other atheists would argue are irrational. Now there's a definition sufficiently vague to include atheism. Maybe not the "practices" part, but the belief that "there is no God" actually comprises a host of more individual beliefs (there is insufficient evidence for God A, God B, God C, God ABC, God AB, God D... ad infinitum). So it can be a collection of beliefs if you hold it up at a certain angle. Again, it's not the atheism that's a religion here. It's the accompanying beliefs (humanism, for example).

Atheism is not a religion. Atheism is not a religion. Atheism is not a religion. Atheism is not a religion. Atheism CAN be a religion by this definition, but it's still questionable. Atheists are fond of saying things like "NOT collecting stamps is not a hobby," and "bald is not a hair color." That may be true. But baldness CAN be a hairstyle. If, for example, it requires maintenance (head shaving), etc. I think atheism is a religion SOLELY in the legal, constitutional sense. That is, you are not allowed to discriminate against someone based on his religion. If atheism doesn't count as a religion, then you can discriminate? No. For that legal purpose, having no religion has to be treated AS a religion. Can we put a monument that says "There Is No God" in a courthouse? No. It endorses a religion -- atheism. In most ways that matter, atheism is not a religion. There can be religions that are atheistic (humanism, etc), but in those cases, OTHER ELEMENTS make it religious, not the atheism. Thoughts?

It's all in how you define your terms. The real issue at hand is "what do you mean by 'religion'?" The answer to THAT question determines the answer to the larger question.

Of course it is. Of course it's not.

I like "seemingly disturbed." Because they're not, you know, ACTUALLY disturbed. There's no legitimate concern that police shoot and kill black people 21 times more often than they shoot and kill white people. But I suppose pointing that out makes me in favor of ignoring the (believable but thus far completely uncorroborated stories of) beheadings of (not just any... CHRISTIAN) children.

Se7en

Gypsy?

Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Once again, the Bible gives the distinct impression that Noah, his wife, his sons and their wives, are the only humans on earth who survived the flood. When you consider the flood story, this makes sense. After all, God could very easily have said to Noah, "There's a huge regional flood coming. You've got 120 years. I strongly suggest you move far away, where the flood won't affect you." That's not what He says. Some of us WANT the Flood to be regional, because you MIGHT make an argument for a regional flood. But the Bible itself doesn't give the slightest inkling that it's talking about less than the whole earth. Did fear and dread of man fall on all the beasts of the earth? No. All the fish? No. Given into man's hands? Not really, no. EVERYTHING that lives and moves about will be food for man? That's some pretty bad dietary advice right there. Ok, drain the blood. Check. Still bad dietary advice. "I will demand an accounting FROM EVERY ANIMAL?" What? Have there been some bear trials that we're not aware of? Is God holding animals accountable for the animals that they kill? I mean, isn't it his fault for making them carnivores? Did they have a vote? What does that verse even mean?

As for my clairvoyant skills, I suppose it would be too much to ask you to repost the paragraph leading up to my comment about awakened rage? You know, the one that sets up an easily refutable basis for my comment -- in the absence of a refutation, I suppose denouncing me as a wannabe clairvoyant is easier. Certainly easier than addressing the serious points I raised in my post, which I can't help but notice you did not do. Easier to level a false accusation that I'm being like Martindale or Geer than it is to address the SUBSTANCE of my critique.

See if I've got this straight: You enjoy the privilege of denouncing the basis of the Ferguson protests and coverage of those issues as "hypocrisy," yet I do not enjoy the privilege of denouncing the comparison you're making, using the cut off heads of innocent children to score a cheap political point against Ferguson protests, as "vile and disgusting" without having you summon the spirits of Martindale and Geer? Really? I submit you've found the hypocrisy you were seeking, and it ain't coming from here. [Note: I am commenting STRICTLY on your argument, not on you as a person]. Personally, I think if you want to talk about the merits of the Ferguson protests, that would be fascinating and you should go for it. But that's not what you did. You decided to judge the Ferguson protests on your own (which is your right) and cast the discussion in such a way that we (readers) are either in favor of the Ferguson police OR in favor of ignoring beheaded Christian children. That's just how you framed the discussion. It's your framing of the discussion that I find vile. Not you. You're actually very cool. But what you did here... I don't know how you don't see it, honestly.

Strange place for such a holiday greeting, but ok, you too. Personally, I hope John Lynn seeks and finds the best medical care he can get.

ISIL has killed hundreds of Muslims. It has killed men suspected of bring gay. Did it take the killing of children to wake your anger? No, they've been killing children for quite some time. Muslim children. I guess it takes the killing of Christian children to wake your rage. And with your rage awakened, what do you do? Wake others! Look at what is happening! This is awful! Stop paying attention to insignificant things like the Kardashians attempting to break the internet with their naked asses, insignificant things like a fake war on Christmas, insignificant things like the profound concern of black Americans that they are treated like animals or like superhuman monsters by the very police force sworn to protect us all... One of those things is not like the others. And to hold up the heads of innocent children to whine that the Ferguson protests are getting too much coverage IS VILE AND DISGUSTING AND BENEATH YOU and I DO NOT apologize for pointing it out. I'm not saying you have to agree with me or refute me. Just expressing my opinion. If I had a comment about your previous thread, I would have made it there.

Vile

Spare me the innocent indignation. You could have compared the lack of ISIL coverage to a thousand issues getting more coverage in the media today. Not only did you choose Ferguson as your point of comparison, you portrayed the Ferguson issue in such a way as to invalidate the claims made by the protesters. That has NOTHING to with the civilized world shrugging at ISIL. If you don't like the Ferguson protests, that's cool. No one is forcing you to agree with them. But what you actually said was that Ferguson is an invalid story that does not deserve the coverage it's getting, and using the heads of innocent children to illustrate that point. So vile and disgusting are kind words, compared to what's called for under the circumstances.

The validity of the cause inspiring the Ferguson protest is unrelated to ISIL beheading innocent children. I find it disgusting that anyone would hold their heads up to shame Ferguson protesters. Hypocrisy? How about a little decency?

I don't see how one injustice invalidates the quest for justice in an unrelated case. Not to pass any judgment on Officer Wilson, pro or con, but there's something flat out despicable about using the heads of innocent children to tell frustrated protesters concerned about an unrelated issue to sit down and shut up. Vile. Sorry.

Another modern example of "how convenient is that" ties into the post hoc ergo procter hoc fallacy (forgive any misspelling). How many people can cite a miracle that goes something like this: So-and-so got a diagnosis of severe fatal cornitearjerkititis. So we prayed for So-and-so. Next time So-and-so visited the hospital, all traces of the disease were gone! It's a miracle! The implication is that the prayer triggered action from God that led to the curing of the disease. Indeed, no other explanation is even entertained. To God be the glory, right? But what happens if you reverse the results? When my friend's wife was knocked down by a stroke, so many of us prayed for her. Prayed and prayed and prayed. And she died. Using the same logic as the previous example, I should be able to say that the prayers triggered God's intervention resulting in the woman's premature death, right? Oh, no? NOW it's a fallacy? NOW we seek alternative explanations? How convenient is that?