Allen Hunt Show Recent Comments

Rowdy on Smokin Hot Wife. Really?

Rowdy — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 22:04:58 EST

Wakilng in the presence of giants here. Cool thinking all around! >>>>> Read Entire Post

Allen on Freedoms to Treasure

Allen — Thu, 29 Sep 2011 17:46:01 EST

LC, to your point on Herman. Another poll showing him in the running. Surprises me as much as it does you, but it is what it is. And good for him for not giving up when folks like me said he had no shot.
http://blogs.ajc.com/kyle-wingfield/2011/09/29/cains-rise-dispells-theory-the-media-made-it-a-two-man-race/ >>>>> Read Entire Post

Allen on Freedoms to Treasure

Allen — Thu, 29 Sep 2011 15:39:26 EST

Update on the pastor.
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/222139/20110929/iranian-pastor-sentenced-to-death.htm >>>>> Read Entire Post

The Last Cainanite on Troy Davis is Dead and I don't feel so Good Myself

The Last Cainanite — Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:30:09 EST

Allen, you are still dodging on the issue of voting for either Rick Perry, who unabashedly supports the death penalty, has been, as governor, responsible for over 200 abortions, has no moral scruples about probably having executed innocent people like Todd Willingham, and who supports executing minors as well as mentally retarded, or Barack Obama, who is pro-choice.

In the meantime, I leave you with this article:
Is there a death penalty-sized hole in Catholicism�s �seamless garment� ethic?... Read Entire Post

The Last Cainanite on Freedoms to Treasure

The Last Cainanite — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 16:28:23 EST

Allen Hunt said on Twitter/Facebook..
Herman Cain now dwarfs Romney and Perry in the latest Republican Zogby poll. Must be because I guest-hosted for him on his show so many times :)

More likely it's because Americans just love pizza :)
If you vote for me America, I promise you, I will deliver!

More likely though, this online Zogby poll is a fluke, an outlier. Look at all the other recent polls. All the other September polls have Cain firmly in the single digits (except for another online Zogby poll which had him at 12%) and now he is supposed to be the clear leader with 28%? Yeah right! ... Read Entire Post

The Last Cainanite on Freedoms to Treasure

The Last Cainanite — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 16:12:59 EST

Allen Hunt said in the OP...

Pastor Yousef Nadarkhani will likely be executed in the next few days in Iran. His crime? Being unwilling to revert back to the faith of his ancestors, Islam. Pastor Yousef has refused to recant his Christian faith. His Christian faith in Iran may cost him his life.

While Iranian laws concerning apostasy are horrible, this guy has an easy way out really - just recant and live to fight another day.

May his faith and steadfastness inspire you and me to greater levels of fidelity.

Making a martyr out of yourself certainly doesn't inspire me to anything. But I find this willingness of very religious people to prove their devoutness by getting killed for their faith rather disturbing.

And may the State Department intervene on his behalf to have his life spared much as they did on behalf of the hikers arrested in Iran and the woman, Sakineh Ashtiani, accused of adultery there who was also scheduled to be executed but ultimately spared due to international pressure.

Big difference is that the hikers are US citizens and thus State Department has clear grounds to get involved. Not so with the Iranian cleric who could get out of his bind by just saying these magic words "There is no god but God and Mohammad is the messenger of God".
As far as Ashtiani, you are forgetting that she also murdered her husband. Where was the outcry when two men (who by the way did not also murder their wives!) were stoned in Iran in 2009? The campaign against Ashtiani's execution is purely a feminist one, nothing more.
... Read Entire Post

The Last Cainanite on Columbus' Wisdom for You and Me

The Last Cainanite — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 15:31:44 EST

M.L. said in comment # 9...
Now as to your last response, obviously secular humanism was not around 500 years ago - but that's the point. You claim we were better behaved when we were less secular; obviously, just the opposite is true.

Great point! Home run! ... Read Entire Post

The Last Cainanite on Columbus' Wisdom for You and Me

The Last Cainanite — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 15:28:35 EST

Allen,
I certainly detest the PC demonization of historical figures and holding them to modern standards. Yet, your approach to Christopher Columbus is just the opposite of this - unquestionable praise. Calling him a "first American" is outright bizarre.

Christopher Columbus was a great explorer and deserves praise for his achievements in navigation. But at the same time he treated the natives brutally and tried to spread Christianity by the sword - something you condemn for Islam but is apparently acceptable for Christianity.
>>>>> Read Entire Post

The Last Cainanite on Dennis Prager's Moral Compass

The Last Cainanite — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 15:13:59 EST

Allen said in the OP
A listener, Lee, forwarded me this piece by Dennis Prager today. Excellent thoughts on the disappearance of morality in American life. We now base everything either on "feelings" or on "rights."

Dennis Prager is a fascinating individual. Quite smart, yet one of the least intellectually honest commentators out there. One of the reasons I say this is that he often engages in special pleading, as in this case. If moral reasoning is not based on a particular set of religious traditions it can't be moral reasoning at all, and thus ipso facto young people can't reason morally if they don't reason morally in the same way Dennis Prager does. Never mind that if, as Dennis Prager would want it, morality were a matter that was merely "revealed, inherited and shared" there is no need for moral reasoning, just for obedience to authorities, such as parents, clerics or kings. Moral reasoning only enters the picture when the matter of morals and ethics is acknowledged to be be complex one that requires deep thought and discourse.
In the end, Dennis Prager ends up, as so often, with a shallow column that can be summed up with "secularism bad, religion good", just like about half of his columns. The other half, of course, following the pattern of "liberalism bad, conservatism good" ...

In other words, the average young person, reared and rooted in secularism, can find no moral compass other than whether something "feels good or right." There is no moral thought process or reasoning. And in that view, no one has any standing to suggest that what you feel might be wrong.

That is abjectly wrong. When religion is the sole determiner of morality, what's the need for moral reasoning? You do what your religious authority tells you to, or you do it because "it is written" etc. Moral reasoning is only necessary if morality and ethics are products of human minds and not some eternal truth revealed from on high.
What is here called "feelings" is merely a pejorative way to refer to moral instincts. And there is nothing wrong with those, they serve as an important reality check. But they should not be relied on solely either, without reasoning.
Ultimately though, Prager is wrong in his assertion, shared by many religionists, that "moral standards are not rooted in God, they do not objectively exist". That is wrong on both a theoretical and practical level. Trying to root moral standards in God runs into the Euthyphro dilemma - is what God commands good because He commands it or does he command it because it is good. If the former, then divine moral standards cannot be said to be objective as they hinge on subjective fiat and "might makes right". If the latter, then objective moral standards cannot be divine as they exist apart and independent of Him.
On a practical level, religions and their leaders and practitioners cannot agree exactly what moral standards are rooted in God, and usually end up in direct contradiction to each other. So rather than having a clear set of moral standards that is both absolute and objective we rather end up with a myriad of standards that are very much subjective but whose partisans insist are not, because their God endorses them.

And as I have discovered in hosting a mainstream radio show about our moral compass, the average American now assumes that something is an acceptable dhoice as long as you have the right to do it. We are free, so your choices are your choices. There is no right and wrong.

Rights-based theory of morality would be an example of a perfectly legitimate, perfectly secular and also objective theory of morality. Note that objective does not necessarily imply absolute, no matter how often people like Dennis Prager or William Lane Craig try to muddle the distinction.

And here is a perfectly good example. Anonymous sperm donor. Picks up extra money by donating genetic material. Spawns at least 70 kids. In most American minds, this is OK because he has a right to do this.

I fail to see what the big problem with this is.

The long-term impact on our culture of being rooted solely in rights rather than right and wrong is beginning to emerge. WIth over 40% of kids being born out of wedlock (after all, you have the right to have sex with whomever you want so it must be OK),

And what do you suggest as a solution? Why don't you light a candle instead of not just cursing the darkness but also cursing any light-giving devices that actually work (i.e. real sex ed, access to birth control, and yes, even access to abortion as a last resort) and that the reality based community suggests?

The secular answer? Abort the kids so they do not make it here in the first place. After all, you have the right to an abortion so it must be OK.

Another secular answer: use protection when you screw. But of course, you are against that as well, being a good obedient Catholic and all. ... Read Entire Post

Atheist Lawyer In Atlanta on Columbus' Wisdom for You and Me

Atheist Lawyer In Atlanta — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 05:56:21 EST

Allen,

Yes, sadly, it is a law school thing. You'll have to accept my apology!

Although I still maintain that you are a christian apologist shill. =)

Peace be with you! >>>>> Read Entire Post

allen on Columbus' Wisdom for You and Me

allen — Tue, 27 Sep 2011 20:35:47 EST

Atheist, you always seem to reduce your comments to labeling or insulting me. Is that a law school thing? Nevertheless, no one has argued that America is perfect, only that it is the best nation created thus far. And that is an easy argument to make. Even without insulting you.

ML - Secular humanism was hardly a sweeping movement 500 years ago. But it is wonderfully easy to sit on our moral high horses and look down on Columbus, the Founding Fathers, and others without locating them in the historical context in which they operated. May God have mercy when the enlightened people of 2511 look down on us. >>>>> Read Entire Post

The Last Cainanite on Troy Davis is Dead and I don't feel so Good Myself

The Last Cainanite — Tue, 27 Sep 2011 17:01:45 EST

rose-ellen said in comment # 7...
War did not prevent the holacaust.

But it sure did stop it.

Perhaps we could have if we had talked more and fought less.Nor did we enter the war over concern about a holocaust..

There was no talking to Hitler - Chamberlain tried, but every concession prompted a further escalation, until it was too late to nip the imperialist Germany in the bud and a full on world war was inevitable.

US entered the war because Germany declared war on US following Pearl Harbor and commencement of hostilities between Japan and US. But even before that US aided the fight against Nazi Germany with materials and volunteers.

But over 50million dead is not defenseable if you abhor killing.

By the time WWII started, there was no way to avoid it. Sorry if that offends your sensibilities.

The death penalty is not about preventing the murderer from killing again -as a pair of hand cuffs could do that. it is about peoples rights and obligation to avenge the murder of the weak and defenseless.

Wait, you are against engaging in a defensive war but are for killing people who are already incarcerated and thus pose no threat out of pure revenge?

I think the Catholic church is right to deny communion to anyone who publicaly states that they support legalized abortion.Though we're all sinners this is not about sin but about undermining the Church[Christ]

No they are not right in doing this.

People are not in sin for believing in legalized abortion-you can't help what you honestly believe no matter how wrong you may be. The grounds for denying comminion are based on the sin of disobedience to the church.

Freedom of conscience is a sin? Thinking for oneself is a sin?
To say that a public official, an elected official should be obedient to a church in matters of public policy is truly beyond the pale. It is interference by an ecclesiastical body in the functioning of a secular and democratic state. The very thing John F. Kennedy denounced in very clear terms over a half century ago.
An excerpt:
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

Even if one disagrees with the church about abortion one should in this matter of grave morals remain silent and not contradict the churchs teaching. To publicaly oppose church teaching on this grave matter is to undermine the Church.

Why should they remain silent? They are public officials and primarily responsible to the public, not the Vatican.

This sin of disobedience[ongoing and adament as oppossed to from the past] is grounds to deny communion .One who knowlingly,willfully takes a public stand against the church in a grave matter is undermining the church and willfully dissobeying the Church.

And the Church trying to force a public official into submission by denying them communion is attempted interference into the democratic process.

Capital punishment has not yet been declarded infallibly wrong by the church[though it is oppossed to it ,it has not been declared as an infallible belief like abortion has].

Where has abortion been infallibly declared wrong?

If and when the church declares capital puncishment as on the level of abortion then i would cease and desist defending it.[capital punishment] Though my personal beliefs would not change I would remain silent about it and not defend it so as to not undermine the Church.

And I gather, if you were to run for office that you would not agree with John F. Kennedy's position on the relationship between private religious beliefs and the execution of public office?... Read Entire Post

Atheist Lawyer In Atlanta on Troy Davis is Dead and I don't feel so Good Myself

Atheist Lawyer In Atlanta — Tue, 27 Sep 2011 16:08:21 EST

Those who adhere to christ-insanity cannot answer questions, as their "faith" is merely a fairy tale, a fraud and a lie.

The only answer Mr. PhD in divinity studies can offer is "have faith, praise jesus!"

And "the devil put those dinosaur bones there to trick us! have faith in TEH LORD!"

Tisk tisk Allen.

... Read Entire Post

The Last Cainanite on Troy Davis is Dead and I don't feel so Good Myself

The Last Cainanite — Tue, 27 Sep 2011 15:23:39 EST

Allen said in comment # 6...
LC, your questions are essay not short answer.

Doesn't your day job involve speaking and writing? An essay length treatment of the subject of death penalty and the Catholic Church would be appropriate for Dynamic Catholic, don't you think?

But here are a few short answers
THere are significant moral differences between the death penalty and abortion.

I agree. Death penalty is much more morally significant.

In degree and kind. Two brief thoughts
Abortion involves an unborn child's being murdered for the mistakes of other people. Death penalty, in contrast, involves a convicted criminal's being executed in response to his/her own mistakes and crimes.

First of all, the word "murder" doesn't apply. Second, the big difference is that in case of death penalty actual thinking, feeling and self-aware human beings are being put to death. Embryos are none of these things.
Look at this chart.

As you can see, a large majority of abortions occur before the 10th gestational week and hardly any occur after week 20.
I am sorry, but to compare an embryo with an actual human being is just silly.

1,300,000 unborn children are massacred each year in this country. Roughly 40 convicts are executed.

Numbers don't affect morality of individual cases.
And have you thought what kind of societal impact more than a million additional unwanted babies would have? The obvious solution to reducing the number of abortions is contraception, something you, your Church and quite a few socially conservative Protestants abhor.

Finally, while I am neither a priest nor a spokesman for the Church (which is not "my" Church as you suggest but rather The CHurch or God's Church),

While "my" and "your" are called "possessive adjectives", they often don't denote possession but rather a more general belonging or identification. Therefore, calling RCC your church is perfectly fine even if you are not the Pope.

the Church has acknowledged some circumstances when the death penalty may be warranted

Judging from historical record, these circumstances seem to be things like blasphemy and heliocentrism.

And regarding the denial of communion, I suggest you do some reading around that idea. It is more complex than your statement above reflects.

Why don't you enlighten us? From where I stand, it certainly looks like the bishops involved in this are right wing and thus have a political axe to grind in trying to damage mostly Democratic politicians with the Catholic electorate.

And you still haven't answered my question about Rick Perry (responsible for 200+ executions, supports executions of mentally challenged and minors) vs. Barack Obama (pro-choice but not responsible for any abortions). ... Read Entire Post

Atheist Lawyer In Atlanta on Columbus' Wisdom for You and Me

Atheist Lawyer In Atlanta — Tue, 27 Sep 2011 14:48:41 EST

Of course you don't buy the "recasting" Of American history.

You're a right wing christian apologist.

Amer"kica" can do no wrong. JESUS IS ON OUR SIDE.

(Except for when he punished us for our sins of homosexuality on 9/11. Re: Jerry Falwell. Who btw, isn't in heaven, as there is no heaven.)

Peace be with you Allen. ... Read Entire Post

Allen on Columbus' Wisdom for You and Me

Allen — Tue, 27 Sep 2011 06:53:52 EST

ML, Sorry, I don't buy the PC recasting of American history. However, I do appreciate the PC textbooks that give Columbus a paragraph and Cal Ripken, Jr., a page and a half. Cal played with balls. Columbus was a courageous hero. >>>>> Read Entire Post

Erik on Columbus' Wisdom for You and Me

Erik — Mon, 26 Sep 2011 21:35:10 EST

Allen said in comment # 1...
mishit

pretty close.
... Read Entire Post

Allen on Columbus' Wisdom for You and Me

Allen — Mon, 26 Sep 2011 16:30:18 EST

My apologies for the screwy font on the post. Was cutting and pasting from another document and mishit >>>>> Read Entire Post

M.L. on Dennis Prager's Moral Compass

M.L. — Sat, 24 Sep 2011 19:27:09 EST

Awesome! You have effectively conceded my point that belief in a supernatural basis of right and wrong does not lead to what Prager considers a sound moral compass. We're on the same page. >>>>> Read Entire Post

Allen on Dennis Prager's Moral Compass

Allen — Sat, 24 Sep 2011 17:09:58 EST

ML, a belief in God does not necessarily correlate with being shaped by that belief or acting on it. Lots of people profess a faith in God but show little or no change in behavior or moral reasoning. That is one reason why 6.8% of Catholics give 80% of the funds donated to the Church and 6.4% give 80% of the volunteer hours donated.
It is evidently very American and very human to have a very shallow faith. >>>>> Read Entire Post

rose-ellen on Troy Davis is Dead and I don't feel so Good Myself

rose-ellen — Sat, 24 Sep 2011 09:40:14 EST

War did not prevent the holacaust. Perhaps we could have if we had talked more and fought less.Nor did we enter the war over concern about a holocaust.. But over 50million dead is not defenseable if you abhor killing.To dismiss the deaths of defenseless men women and children as legitimate uinder the label of war while seeing the killing of a murderer as atrocious is flippant. And it is not occasionaly that we have been at war.We spent the whole 20th c and now this c at war practically-meaning dropping bombs on men women and children and in this c we've taken up torture too..We 've added war on terror now which means we can kill any one we really hate including anyone near them ..And we, since then have been dropping bombs on populated villages[vietnam and then iraq and afghanistan and pakistan].Simply placing those killings under the rubric of war is too easy; a way to kill unarmed people we really hate and anyone near them while pretending we are not murderers. Especially when we admit to a policy of pre-emptive war,and revenge where people who are part of that group but not part of the original killers are themselves fair game.[Invading afghanistan and dropping bombs on people just becaause alquada trained there] If killing unarmed people is justiffied under the label war -why not then just label all convicted murderers enemies and justify killing them on the grounds that they are at war with us.[society] The use of words terrorist vs. criminal, war vs. execution is tailored made to justify our need and desire to exact revenge and we can dissmiss the killing of innocent people [civilians] as acceptable even as we claim we oppose killing.Just treat premeditated murderers as combatants in a war against peaceloving citizens and then you could execute them as we do terrorists.That you oppose this is because your hatred is confined to those you have dehumanized[terrorists] and criminals don't fall into your categotry of dehumanization.It is about who we really hate- not about what our values are. Our values conform to our feelings. Those you really hate you dehumanize ,then declare war on ,then kill them . Murderers who have not been dehumanized because we do not hate them more then we love our professed values[ourselves] we don't declare them as enemies and hence you don't want to kill them. But not because you're against killing -you're just against killing people who you don't hate enopugh to dehumanize. The death penalty is not about preventing the murderer from killing again -as a pair of hand cuffs could do that. it is about peoples rights and obligation to avenge the murder of the weak and defenseless. To not do so is to implicitly believe that "let the stronger one remain standing". That is unjust. Capital punishment places the murderer as a responsible being-not an animal who simply by being stronger then his target gets to live while the weaker one dies. He is part of the society of people who part of being human means we are free to choose and respopnsible for pre-meditated murder.He should not get to remain standing because he is stronger then his victim. Society intervenes for the defenseless even[after the fact] when he has been defeated by the stronger .
I think the Catholic church is right to deny communion to anyone who publicaly states that they support legalized abortion.Though we're all sinners this is not about sin but about undermining the Church[Christ] People are not in sin for believing in legalized abortion-you can't help what you honestly believe no matter how wrong you may be. The grounds for denying comminion are based on the sin of disobedience to the church. Even if one disagrees with the church about abortion one should in this matter of grave morals remain silent and not contradict the churchs teaching. To publicaly oppose church teaching on this grave matter is to undermine the Church. This sin of disobedience[ongoing and adament as oppossed to from the past] is grounds to deny communion .One who knowlingly,willfully takes a public stand against the church in a grave matter is undermining the church and willfully dissobeying the Church.Capital punishment has not yet been declarded infallibly wrong by the church[though it is oppossed to it ,it has not been declared as an infallible belief like abortion has]. If and when the church declares capital puncishment as on the level of abortion then i would cease and desist defending it.[capital punishment] Though my personal beliefs would not change I would remain silent about it and not defend it so as to not undermine the Church. >>>>> Read Entire Post

Allen on Troy Davis is Dead and I don't feel so Good Myself

Allen — Sat, 24 Sep 2011 09:05:58 EST

LC, your questions are essay not short answer. But here are a few short answers
THere are significant moral differences between the death penalty and abortion.
In degree and kind. Two brief thoughts
Abortion involves an unborn child's being murdered for the mistakes of other people. Death penalty, in contrast, involves a convicted criminal's being executed in response to his/her own mistakes and crimes.
1,300,000 unborn children are massacred each year in this country. Roughly 40 convicts are executed.
Finally, while I am neither a priest nor a spokesman for the Church (which is not "my" Church as you suggest but rather The CHurch or God's Church), the Church has acknowledged some circumstances when the death penalty may be warranted although those circumstances are fewer and fewer in reality given the conditions of modern life. And regarding the denial of communion, I suggest you do some reading around that idea. It is more complex than your statement above reflects.... Read Entire Post

The Last Cainanite on Troy Davis is Dead and I don't feel so Good Myself

The Last Cainanite — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 21:03:54 EST

Allen, since your position on death penalty is so strong, why do you think it's ok for you to vote for pro-death penalty politicians but not for pro-choice ones?
Most notably, how could you justify voting for Rick Perry, should he be the GOP nominee, over Barack Obama? After all, Perry is responsible for over 200 executions, but Obama is not responsible for any abortions that I know of. Furthermore, he vetoed a bill that would have banned death penalty for the mentally challenged and he criticized SCOTUS banning death penalty for minors.
Lastly, many US Catholic (arch)bishops have adopted the policy of denying communion to Catholic politicians who are pro choice, but not to those who are pro-execution. What do you think of this blatant double standard in your Church, Allen? >>>>> Read Entire Post

Allen on Troy Davis is Dead and I don't feel so Good Myself

Allen — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 20:44:06 EST

Rose-Ellen, sadly there are times when war is necessary in order to defend the innocent, or end genocide, etc.. E.g., WW II.
While war may occasionally be necessary, capital punishment is not. In an era when we have prisons and the ability to incarcerate criminals for life when needed, there is no need to kill prisoners. It accomplishes nothing and arrogates to the state the ability to end life. >>>>> Read Entire Post

rose-ellen caminer on Troy Davis is Dead and I don't feel so Good Myself

rose-ellen caminer — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 14:55:33 EST

Killing a murderer is just. A lot more just then killing innocent people by dropping bombs on them because of our interests.Saying you don't intentionally mean to kill them is bogus as you know bombs kill and people live where those bombs are dropping.Unless you're a pacificst or at least only fight back when someone is directly being attacked-this abhorance to kill as a punishment for killingf an unarmed defenslfess person is bogus.We kill people all the time in war. And i fear thar in the future we will abolish the death penalty as a sign to ourselves how we value all life. But at the same time we will label people we really hate as terrorists and we will say as we say now-that they are not criminals but outside all laws[terrorists is a label meant to say no human consideration for their actions is aplicale to them] and we are at war with them-hence killing such people even when unarmed will be the norm. This way we can have our cake and eat it too; we can feel morally self righteous by abolishing the death penalty for people we don't really hate[[not tortally other] and for those we have totally dehumanized with the label terrorist - we will resort to killing them. It is of course the best of both worlds maintining the facade of being pro-life while killing people in cold blood.A country that does not have a death penalty is I believe complicit with the murderer and with the unethical barbaric notion that might makes right,only the strong survive and survival of the fittest.Life in prison without parole is inhuman . Could you hold the key to a persons freedom and have to face them in their cells everyday for their whole lives? I don't support a system where appeals take so long. A matter of weeks or perhaps months should be sufficient in most cases for appeals to be thoughrly but faily adjudicated.Though we can not judge a persons soul, we are called to avenge[yes i said avenge] the murder of a defenseless,helpless person. To not do so is to NOT be civilized. >>>>> Read Entire Post

Ed carter on Troy Davis is Dead and I don't feel so Good Myself

Ed carter — Thu, 22 Sep 2011 20:59:44 EST

Thanks for the great tour this morning at chick filet. What a nice bunch .
Only God can judge Allen . We accomplished a lot more resentment more hard feelings and hate. Truly , what would Jesus do ? Come on people smile on your brother everybody get together and Love one another right now . Just like the song says . Peace in Christ! >>>>> Read Entire Post

Erik on Positively Brilliant

Erik — Thu, 22 Sep 2011 15:40:06 EST

The evidence was kind of sketchy. I think death penalty should have an even higher burden of proof than the usual stuff. Like when there is no doubt whatsoever. I know that's a crappy way to put it- I am not sure how to phrase it in legal-speak.

Still we're probably better off without Davis, so the hell with him.
>>>>> Read Entire Post

The Last Cainanite on Positively Brilliant

The Last Cainanite — Thu, 22 Sep 2011 10:31:16 EST

M.L. said in comment # 3...

Actually, Georgia is unusual in that the Governor cannot stop an execution.

Do you have any link to support that?
Still, my larger point stands, as all five of the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles were appointed by Sonny Purdue, a Republican.
Allen is a Republican and claims opposition to death penalty is part of his overall pro-life philosophy. Yet Republicans tend to be very gung-ho on death penalty. I will be very interested how, shall Rick Perry win the nomination, Allen will justify supporting him in the general election. After all, Obama has not been involved in any abortions himself, but Perry has been involved in over 200 executions.

BTW M.L., did you know you can use the "Quote Selection" link in the header of a comment to highlight the quoted portion of a post?... Read Entire Post

The Last Cainanite on Positively Brilliant

The Last Cainanite — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 13:48:57 EST

Allen Hunt said on Twitter/Facebook...
Big Bang Theory season premiere tomorrow night. Phil Collins was right - I've been waiting for this moment for all my life. Is there a 12 step group for BBT viewers?

Let me see - the characters have - from your worldview - horrible morals, especially sexual morals, Evangelical Christians - personified by Sheldon's mom - get made fun of and the science/technology/geek culture jokes undoubtedly go way above your head. What exactly do you like about the show? >>>>> Read Entire Post

The Last Cainanite on Positively Brilliant

The Last Cainanite — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 13:44:21 EST

And yet you still pretend you are not about "right and left" Allen?

Instead of solving our problems with a balanced approach which includes both broad (meaning including military!) spending cuts and tax increases (for example through closing of tax loopholes) teabaggers like you demand drastic spending cuts in social spending (social security, healthcare etc.), essential services (infrastructure, education, disaster preparedness etc.) and research (NASA, NSF, NIH etc.) while rejecting any spending cuts for the military or any tax increases whatsoever.

Allen Hunt said in the OP...
Second, at what point do we become the European welfare state model?

US is nowhere near being close to "the European welfare state model". Sure, most European countries went overboard on certain kinds of social spending when their economies were booming to the level that in now unsustainable, just like US went overboard with military spending and things like war on drugs that are equally unsustainable. The big difference is - the spendthrift habits of European nations are usually focused on helping their citizens, rather than incarcerating them for example as a result of the war on drugs.

That said, I did admit that some of the social spending of European countries is unsustainable. However, the level of social services in US is so far behind the European countries (just see how hard it is to implement even a modest version of universal healthcare!) that we could increase social spending substantially more on social programs and still be sustainable. Of course, that would necessitate giving up on things like spending 5% of our GDP on the military or untold billions on war on drugs or war on sex. That a country that incarcerates more people per capita than any other has the hubris to still call itself "the land of the free" is grotesque!

Allen Hunt said on Twitter/Facebook...

Georgia Parole Board has denied clemency for Troy Davis. He is set to die in our death chamber tomorrow. Killing a guy who has been in prison for 22 years is somehow supposed to make me feel safer? Not to mention, what if we are wrong and he really did not do it. Killing an innocent guy who has been in prison for 22 years. What does that say about us?

Yes, I too have my doubts about Troy Davis' guilt.
Note though, that the only person that can save Troy Davis now is the Republican governor of Georgia. Meaning, he's as good as dead. Yet GOP pretends they are are a "pro-life" party just because they are anti-abortion. What a joke! They are pro-life from conception until birth only.
Take for example Rick Perry and executions. Perry is responsible for 234 executions, which is by far more than any other modern governor, including George W. Bush, the previous record holder. He vetoed a bill that would have banned death penalty for mentally retarded convicts and has criticized the SCOTUS ruling banning execution of juveniles. He also blocked investigation into the case of the probably innocent Todd Willingham, who was convicted based on erroneous expert testimony. When Perry was asked about his death penalty record at a recent GOP presidential debate, the crowd reacted with cheers and applause.
Or take the issue of healthcare. When Ron Paul was asked whether an uninsured 30-something should be left to die in absence of universal healthcare, his answer was unrealistic "churches will take care of it. But the worst thing of all were the teabaggers in the audience yelling "yeah!" [let him die]. So Ron Paul wishes we go back to the social conditions of the Dickenisian novels while those that drink their tea straight would even go further than that.
As I say, they are pro-life from conception until birth. But only, of course, if the mother can afford private prenatal insurance. ... Read Entire Post

Erik on One Reason I'll Live Longer

Erik — Sun, 18 Sep 2011 09:05:57 EST

Dude aint got a colon.
>>>>> Read Entire Post

Erik on One Reason I'll Live Longer

Erik — Thu, 15 Sep 2011 20:42:48 EST

most research shows that married men live considerably longer than the unmarried.

actually it just feels like longer.
>>>>> Read Entire Post

Erik on Glad I'm not a Girl

Erik — Thu, 15 Sep 2011 20:40:29 EST

M.L. said in comment # 6...
(e.g. Garrison Keillor, Eleanor Roosevelt, etc.).

Allen Hunt, Erik in Athens....... Read Entire Post

The Last Cainanite on Glad I'm not a Girl

The Last Cainanite — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 11:02:48 EST

Atheist Lawyer In Atlanta said in comment # 4...
Guys, frankly, your posts are completely inappropriate...This is NOT what secular morality is about and kind of deludes the Atheist message. And you wonder why christian apologists (like Allen) look at atheists as immoral folks.

Why are they inappropriate? Erik made a tongue in cheek statement, I went after Allen's pretty ridiculous extrapolation. Both are quite appropriate.
And what part of either my or Erik's response pegs us as "immoral"? And besides, in no way should I acquiesce to Allen's distorted notions of morality, just to avoid being labeled as "immoral" by him. After all, I am already labeled as such for not being against abortion, contraception, premarital sex and even masturbation (yes Allen is on record agreeing with Christine O'Donnell on this) and because I don't hate gays.

Allen makes a legitimate point. (Finally!)

Allen made half a legitimate point. He linked to a Dove ad that made a legitimate point about artificial beauty (and quite well I might add,) and he did address it somewhat, but his claim that that somehow makes girls disadvantaged in our society is just stupid. For one, as you correctly pointed out, these kinds of media messages and pressures apply just as well to guys as to girls - in somewhat different ways, but nevertheless. Secondly, our society advantages women in many important ways, some of which I pointed out before. ... Read Entire Post

Erik on A Decade Later

Erik — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 12:29:46 EST

I suppose this is heresy to my atheist brothers and sisters, but I was incredibly moved by the story of Father Judge, the FDNY chaplain who was killed on 9.11. The Naudet brothers documentary captures footage of him in the lobby after the attacks. The narrator says, "I knew he was praying." When you look at him, you can see the courage and the care on his face. He seems to be the keeper of decency amid the carnage. I know...I know...the actual fireman did more than all the prayers, still he was there and died with them. It's like when they used to have a guy whose most important job was to be the 'color-bearer' in a battle. The guy doesn't DO anything but he is in some ways the carrier of meaning.
It was thought initially that he died giving last rites to someone. I remember at his funeral someone said "What better way to die, helping someone and talking to God." Amen.
Check out the documentary if you haven't seen it. Incredibly moving. >>>>> Read Entire Post

Atheist Lawyer In Atlanta on Glad I'm not a Girl

Atheist Lawyer In Atlanta — Fri, 09 Sep 2011 16:17:34 EST

Guys, frankly, your posts are completely inappropriate...This is NOT what secular morality is about and kind of deludes the Atheist message. And you wonder why christian apologists (like Allen) look at atheists as immoral folks.

Allen makes a legitimate point. (Finally!)

What I would ask Allen to look at even further though are the images of male models. The same concept applies. When the models and the media images are not real, are enhanced, and then placarded before every eye in the world, it has got to be deflating to try to "measure up."

This problem is VERY real for both males and females. But I can understand how you would look at it through a female perspective with 2 daughters.

... Read Entire Post

The Last Cainanite on Glad I'm not a Girl

The Last Cainanite — Fri, 09 Sep 2011 12:33:24 EST

Erik said in comment # 1...
I would never get anything done. would just be pleasuring myself 24/7. not that different come to think of it.

Orgasm button
I miss Leslie Winkle :(... Read Entire Post

The Last Cainanite on Glad I'm not a Girl

The Last Cainanite — Fri, 09 Sep 2011 12:13:09 EST

Allen said in the OP...
This video reminds me once again how glad I am that I am not a girl. How do you even begin to compete with this kind of stuff? When the models and the media images are not real, are enhanced, and then placarded before every eye in the world, it has got to be deflating to try to "measure up."

Nice video. But being a girl has obvious advantages. You'd be a beneficiary of affirmative action, you'd get free drinks at bars/clubs, you can have multiple orgasms etc.
In addition, you'd always be able to make some extra cash by stripping.

Our job is to combat this kind of tomfoolery by teaching our daughters from a young age that they are beautiful and that they are loved for who they are.

But if she is, in fact, ugly, wouldn't telling her she is beautiful be, you know, lying? And isn't that supposed to be one of Top 10 commandments?

Allen said on Twitter/Facebook...
It takes a lot of humility to be a beggar.

No it doesn't. It just takes being aggressive and inconsiderate. ... Read Entire Post

The Last Cainanite on BackStage Tours

The Last Cainanite — Fri, 09 Sep 2011 11:44:22 EST

Weird, the Health Magazine list I found does not even have Chick-Fil-A, but it does have Chipotle, which gets rather poor marks from the guys compiling your list. So, I guess it's a tie...

That said, I would not eat at Chick-Fil-A, at least not unless someone else is buying. In addition to their food not being my favorite, I also don't appreciate that company pushing fundamentalist Christianity. Truatt Cathy has a right to his religious beliefs, of course, but I also have a right to take my business elsewhere when he inappropriately uses his business as an evangelistic platform by, for example, distributing Focus on the Family (radical fundamentalist organization started by James Dobson) materials to customers or closing on so-called "Lord's Day". >>>>> Read Entire Post

Erik on Glad I'm not a Girl

Erik — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 20:59:56 EST

I would never get anything done. would just be pleasuring myself 24/7. not that different come to think of it.
>>>>> Read Entire Post

Allen on BackStage Tours

Allen — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 13:39:18 EST

http://health.yahoo.net/experts/eatthis/americas-best-and-worst-restaurants

#1 >>>>> Read Entire Post

The Last Cainanite on BackStage Tours

The Last Cainanite — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 12:14:28 EST

allen said in comment # 3...
Ask you doctor, LC. Chick-filA is the healthiest fast food there is. Peanut oil, canola oil. Fruit cups. Salads. And the diet lemonade is divine. 30 calories in the large. I drink it three times a week

Since Chick-Fil-A is your advertiser, I would not trust what you have to say about them anyway. Interestingly, Chick-Fil-A does not appear on the health.com list of "10 healthiest fast food chains". Even more interestingly, McDonalds does, on place 8. And they are even open on Sundays.
... Read Entire Post

The Last Cainanite on A Decade Later

The Last Cainanite — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 10:52:52 EST

Allen said in comment # 4...
1) Many of us just needed to be near God. In an hour of deep pain and anxiety, we yearned to experience the rich goodness of God, to know that He was on His throne and still reigning. Human beings have an intrinsic awareness of God written on their hearts. We need Him.

I find this extremely condescending. I am a human being and I have no "intrinsic awareness of God" written on my heart or any other parts of my body.

Allen said in comment # 4...
I would take it a step further and say that it has very little to do with the Middle East and American behavior at all but rather is a modern expression of the behavior modelled by Mohammed and his successors who waged war against those who disagreed with them from the outset, spreading Islam by the sword into the originally Jewish and Christian Middle East

Islam is definitely more violent than Christianity is today, but that was not always so. Before modern times, Christianity has been just as violent as Islam. And what's this nonsense about "originally Jewish and Christian Middle East"? No such thing. After all, those lands were something before Christianity and Judaism were invented. So Christianity conquering Middle East is good, but Islam doing the same is bad? Special pleading Allen! ... Read Entire Post

Atheist Lawyer In Atlanta on A Decade Later

Atheist Lawyer In Atlanta — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 20:46:02 EST

Allen,

I appreciate your comment and would respond by stating that I do not get paid ungodly sums of money like you do to "express" my opinion. If I did, much like yourself, then of course my name would be readily available to all. Until that time however, I shall remain anonymous on this website, as I do not have the social power to call upon countless sheep to do my bidding.

Keep in mind however, that in real life I am quite an outspoken atheist and will continue to be, in the courtroom and outside the courtroom. I will also continue to shine upon the absurdity that is christ-insanity.

Blessings upon you. =)

... Read Entire Post

rose-ellen on A Decade Later

rose-ellen — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 17:11:34 EST

I don't claim to know the history of islam.I do know that back then conquest was the norm for all or most groups [tribes ,ethnicities, religions whatever]. I certainly know that the history of christendom [europe] is one of torture and mass murder in the name of God [the church]. and the conquest of the americas was more of the same.I also know that both jews and muslims traveled together to spain and were expelled together due to christian religious intolerence. And that cordoba was a city exemplfying peaceful co-existence in europe of the 3 faiths.-hence the name cordova mosque given to the falsely called -ground zero mosque-by the way]. I am wary of any history of islam written since the creation of the state of israel and the ongoing conflict arising from that event and even more written since 9-11. I know that christians and jews lived in relative harmony in the muslim mid east till the advent of european colonialism ,the state of israel and the neo colonial american policy of propping up regimes for cheap oil, military bases and cold war interests. if muslims conquored by the sword -that is no different that the history of christianity.I am aware they had seperate courts in the muslim mid east for the seperate faiths indicating to me that they were more tolerant then most of the west was of religious differences.In any event what is happening today is not about religious conquest but political.And speaking of spreading religion by the sword- we spread our religion -americanism -by the sword .We don't claim to kill people in the name of god today[though we did historically] but we kill never the less and impose our will [proxy regimes, western imposed territorial divisions etc] in the name of Americanism and american interests. And we value patriotism in the name of americanism- as being the highest virtue we can ascribe to a person. We have become extremely pompous in our obsession with any thing american-pouring over every facet of our history with awe and sanctimony.We believe that as long as we use the word freedom or america in a sentence when we drop bombs or invade peoples homelands, it doesn't matter how man men women and children get their arms and legs blown off by our weapons-yet speak as if evil struck planet earth when the same was done to us.How dare. they- didn't God tell these people that only americans have the right to bomb people? We worship militarism and in effect have made americanism a religion.How many people have we killed in the past 10 yrs. any monuments with their names enscibed? for me the cities and villages of iraq, afghanistan and pakistan are as sacred grounds as ground zero! >>>>> Read Entire Post

Allen on A Decade Later

Allen — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 16:18:40 EST

Rose-Ellen
I would take it a step further and say that it has very little to do with the Middle East and American behavior at all but rather is a modern expression of the behavior modelled by Mohammed and his successors who waged war against those who disagreed with them from the outset, spreading Islam by the sword into the originally Jewish and Christian Middle East (what is known now as Islamic countries was the center of Christianity until the 11th and 12th centuries when Islamic marauders came in and massacred Christians into forced conversions) and then into Europe on multiple occasions before being finally halted at Poitiers in 732 and again in Vienna in 1683.
You are right - American behavior has been far from perfect. But the core issue is much deeper than that. And you are right - war rarely helps anything except weapons manufacturers

Lawyer, I appreciate the irony of you as an anonymous poster without his own web site or even a name, calling me, a very public blogger and radio host who expresses his opinion, a "coward." Better hurry, you are running late for your anger management class.
... Read Entire Post

Lawyer in Atlanta on A Decade Later

Lawyer in Atlanta — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 16:04:26 EST

@ Rose-ellen

Gasp! Is that blasphemy I see? Rose how dare you suggest that muslims are in the right, or better yet, merely mirroring what christian apologist slime in America have been doing to them for the better part of the decade?!

Don't you know, Muslims do not believe in the divinity of jeebus! And as a result, are going straight to hell because their sins have not been cleansed! PRAISE JEEBUS.

Am I pretty much right on target Allen?

Notice how the bronze age christian coward hasn't responded yet. Delicious. ... Read Entire Post

rose-ellen on A Decade Later

rose-ellen — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 14:44:17 EST

It's not any more insane then carpet bombing cites or dropping bombs on men women and children of afghanistan,iraq, viet nam and all the other cities, towns and villages of the past ten yrs and the last century. .America spent the whole 20th c killing civilians and so too this decade . These jidaists believe [like we do when we kill] that they were freedom fighters wanting to liberate their people from western meddling in their homelands. There was nothing religious about it except in so far that their primary identification is as muslims . But just as we believe when we drop bombs on people and are killed in battle that God is with us and we will go to heaven ,they believe God is with them in their struggle to liberate their homelands from western oppressors. That we propped up brutal dictators and vetoed every UN resolution that would benefit the palestinians . They brought us to the knowledge that for the first time there could be consequences to Us for our actions toward THEM. This is what angered us -that it was no longer a given that we could act in the world with impunity as we ran roughshod over the rights of the people who our puppet regimes oppressed even as we claim to believe in universal human rights and human freedom. It was not that we abhor violence or the killing of civilians that angered us but the reality that they ciould cause us to suffer for having caused them to suffer. This upset of power is the root of our anger- we never had any qualms about using violence against civilians in our wars or in our policies of propping up tyranys for cheap oil, military bases and cold war interests. This narrative that their religion caused them to want to kill non muslims is self serving and belies the reality that history did not start on 9-11. We were responsible for the suffering of millions of muslims through puppet regimes, the first gulf war, sanctions against iraq, support of zionist expansion and oppression of palestinians etc. Theirs was a defensive war designed to show us that we could not be sure of acting in the world with impunity as before. Religion had nothing to do with it but our policies toward them did. This was political yet we gave it the false narrative of irational fanatics who simply because we're not muslim wanted to kill us. The arab spring belies that and Osama who supported the arab uprisings was the avatar of the 21st c-a century- the century of people-not nation states-not regimes or military powers-but people rising up for themselves against these oppressors.Yes he was a mass murderer but he died believing in his heart of heart that he did not start this war. His was a struggle to liberate his homelands from our unjust meddling which benefitted us but hurt his people[muslims].We are not a christian nation we claim. Yet ironically we do have a religion . Our religion is Americanism- and in its' name we do and have done everything we accuse the muslims of doing in the name of islam.Of course their acts of terrorism are from their perspective designed to bring us to the knowledge that we can't be seccure that because we are a military superpower we can act on them with policies that benefit us yet hurt them - with impunity as we have in the past. The world and its' peoples do not belong to us and it may cost us to act as if it does. >>>>> Read Entire Post

Atheist Lawyer In Atlanta on A Decade Later

Atheist Lawyer In Atlanta — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 01:44:06 EST

1) You needed to be "near" god? Is god only "around" in church? Last time I checked, your "god" was omniscient. Yes Allen, your god is EVERYWHERE. Atheists cannot "take" god out of school either by the way. Silly bronze age christian.

2) Allah ackbar Allen. God allowed these things to occur because ISLAM is the one true religion. The men who flew planes into the world trade center are now in HEAVEN with the great prophet and 72 virgins!

What, you don't believe it Allen? You need more FAITH, allah ACKBAR. These men had a personal relationship with ALLAH. Religion does wonderful things!

O wait, your god is fake and their god is fake. And belief in god makes you insane. The evidence is clear your honor. Religion is a plague.

And you agree with me, don't you Allen? Whoever believes that flying a plane into a building gets you into heaven with 72 virgins is INSANE. True or False Allen? True or False? ... Read Entire Post

Erik on The Good Life in Prison

Erik — Sat, 03 Sep 2011 23:04:24 EST

Good discussion here of natural selection as related to homosexuality. I would like to add my own theory- which is that homosexuality isn't necessarily selected for, but that sexual plasticity and variability IS. It's actually quite interesting to see what traits are conserved, as that is a window into our past, as well as into the nature of what it is to be human. Of course there is not conscious teleology involved in natural selection. Stuff just happens. However the fact there is such a wide range of sexual behaviors (as well as fetishes and paraphilias- cf. Kraft-Ebbing) suggests to me that under the conditions of human evolution it was necessary to preserve a very strong but highly variable range of sexual attraction in the male. One has to keep in mind species level genetics as well as individual fitness.

I believe that viewing humanity with the tools of evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology leads us to be much more compassionate with our fellow human beings. One finds less fault with gays for being gay or women for being women or men for being men. It removes the blaming and shaming that has always been part of society's (certainly the church's) approach to sexual behavior.

Men want to stick it in any where we can. Women want breed with an alpha-male, then have a nurturing beta-male care for her offspring. Not because we are 'bad' people but because these are the mandates of our genes. Once we understand this, we can deal with it honestly. We can rise above the siren song of biology, take care of ourselves and others.

... Read Entire Post

allen on The Good Life in Prison

allen — Sat, 03 Sep 2011 20:01:25 EST

Lawyer, generalize much?

>>>>> Read Entire Post

allen on BackStage Tours

allen — Sat, 03 Sep 2011 20:00:12 EST

Ask you doctor, LC. Chick-filA is the healthiest fast food there is. Peanut oil, canola oil. Fruit cups. Salads. And the diet lemonade is divine. 30 calories in the large. I drink it three times a week >>>>> Read Entire Post

allen on BackStage Tours

allen — Sat, 03 Sep 2011 20:00:10 EST

Lawyer in Atlanta on The Good Life in Prison

Lawyer in Atlanta — Sat, 03 Sep 2011 17:05:39 EST

Notice how the secularists, specifically TLC and ML respond to religious absurdity with solid facts, logical arguments and rational thought.

Then notice how when Allen opens his mouth it's a bunch of religious nonsense with no evidence, illogical circular reasoning, and facts that don't fit the puzzle.

Go back to church and stay there Allen. The fact that you have a radio show tells me what is wrong with America. And the American downfall is coming, because of religious lunatics like you.

Yes Allen, Zeus is the cause of lightning and thunder. It's all Zeus. I have faith it is Zeus, and I also have a personal relationship with Zeus. Do I sound crazy advocating this? It's because anyone who actually believes in Zeus is INSANE.

Blessings be upon thee Allen. PRAISE JESUS! ... Read Entire Post

Lawyer in Atlanta on We're Better than You Think

Lawyer in Atlanta — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 20:00:05 EST

Perfect video to explain my point Erik. Thanks. I'm happy to know that there are some sane people in the world. I was starting to lose my "faith" in humanity. >>>>> Read Entire Post

Erik on We're Better than You Think

Erik — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 13:11:08 EST

... Read Entire Post

Lawyer in Atlanta on We're Better than You Think

Lawyer in Atlanta — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 04:17:47 EST

Allen is obsessed with birth rates because he belongs to the cult of christ-insanity.

Have you noticed that most religious cults want you to reproduce as much as possible? The more insane folks you rise the more powerful your army is. And Allen wants an army, an army for his fake god CHRIST!

Just imagine if I advocated a higher birth rate to rise an army for ZEUS. I would be labeled insane, correct? Of course I would, because the notion is absurd! But when Allen advocates more births for the christ army, all these church going scum praise him mindlessly.

Interesting. Continue tending to your "flock" of sheep. ... Read Entire Post

Erik on The Smart Money is on God

Erik — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 22:13:19 EST

I can't add much to this except to recommend Jerry Coyne's "Why Evolution is True".

It's interesting to see, as one looks back over history, how the Church has stood squarely in the way of every advancement in science and human achievement. Medical science was set back 1000 years by the Church's prohibition against 'desecrating' bodies. The first anatomists had to use dead apes, and thus got some stuff wrong. Then it was astronomy, then evolution, then contraception. Just imagine how far we might have advanced had the Church not stood in the way. Had it not been for Muslim scholars in the Middle Ages much of human knowledge would have been lost. Sickening when you consider that the church's most effective tactic is to imply that they are somehow the defenders of goodness and decency in the world. I think people should be ashamed of being members of organized crime...er....i mean religion.

>>>>> Read Entire Post

The Last Cainanite on What Makes America Different: Dignity of Each Life

The Last Cainanite — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 12:32:55 EST

powerb47 said in comment # 14...
And yet, it is the same tree that you somewhat complimented earlier in another thread for educating, healing, feeding, & clothing more people than any other single organization on the globe. Good fruit, no? Or bad fruit in disguise?

I certainly would not have used those words, but yes, RCC does do some good.
It is Jesus of the Gospels, not I, who sees this whole issue of good/bad tree/fruits as so starkly black/white. And he would have a point for institutions claiming being representatives of God on Earth - then bad fruit RCC has produced over the centuries is just about enough to falsify that claim.
That's my problem in a nutshell. RCC has both positive and negative sides to it (I think negatives are dominant, and have been for a while), as you would expect from a human institution. I would certainly expect a divine institution to be more perfect than that.

powerb47 said in comment # 14...

St. Paul tells us Jesus is our high priest, the standard we strive to emulate.

He certainly did not. Are you confusing Paul with the unknown author (maybe Priscilla?) of Hebrews?
In any case, the author of Hebrews nowhere says that priests should be celibate or indeed that Jesus was celibate. He (she?) makes many references to Jewish office of priesthood and these priests certainly weren't celibate.

Jesus himself presided at the first mass. God himself does not need to be ordained by a human being.

Wait? Jesus presided at the first mass? What? Are you importing elements of later Catholic liturgy where they don't belong?

powerb47 said in comment # 14...
John 20:21-23.

Same thing here. Jesus is depicted here of sending his disciples, literally making them apostles, not priests.

powerb47 said in comment # 14...
Some artificial birth control methods do not. I used the etc. because we were also speaking of abortion, euthanasia, & ESCR, which certainly do.

You said "birth control etc." which is a weird way to express it when what you said does not even apply to birth control. ... Read Entire Post

The Last Cainanite on Centering Harry Potter

The Last Cainanite — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 12:03:52 EST

powerb47 said in comment # 28...

The same reason I trust my wife's love for me, even though she said our trip to France was in 2007, when it was really in 2008. She's human; so were the Bible authors.

What M.L. said, plus: that your wife loves you is something which is merely an internal state of her mind. She might lie about it, but she is certainly in the position to know it, and the only person to know for sure.
Contrast that with Biblical authors, who are not talking about their internal state of mind, but facts about the makeup of the external world. And if what they say about the external world is inaccurate on things we can independently verify (science, history etc.) there is no reason to trust them on matters we can't (existence and nature of God). ... Read Entire Post

The Last Cainanite on His Name was Pruden

The Last Cainanite — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 11:41:44 EST

powerb47 said in comment # 18...

OK. So now you're adding a caveat that the law constrains my independently thought out decision about when I am ready for sex & who I will have it with?

Well laws do constrain our actions, but my position is that they should constrain as little as possible.
That said, I do believe operating a 2 ton heavy machine should be subject to stricter legal restrictions than sex.

What about sodomy or adult sex with a minor?

Sodomy laws have been, rightly, declared unconstitutional. Government has no right to mandate only certain orifices be used, under penalty of felony prosecution.
Adult sex with a minor is also ok, within reason, as I think age of consent should be at 16 with some form of "Romeo and Juliet" provision for those under 16.
I think it is travesty what allegedly liberal states like California or Massachssetts are doing criminalizing consensual teenage sex.

I think these are still illegal in various places so these are off limits? Just trying to understand your position completely...

I hope I clarified my position sufficiently. And no, sodomy is not illegal anywhere in the US since Lawrence vs. Texas decision from 2003.

powerb47 said in comment # 18...

OK. Is the fact that Western Europeans are not replacing their population an intended or unintended consequence?

An unintended consequence, and also an unfortunate one for sure. However, that is less serious than what Allen advocates and what would happen without access to contraceptives/abortion, which is very high birth rates and population growth.

powerb47 said in comment # 18...

I really don't. Please remember I am one of those less educated more religious types whose parents raised him on a way too narrow definition of sex. I'm sincerely inviting you to enlighten me on the "full" definition of sex. You are free to decline of course.

Didn't you claim that you experienced the "full definition" yourself when you were young, before you came back to the Church?

powerb47 said in comment # 18...

And you LC have a very idealistic view of teenage boys! Oh the irony!

Not at all. ... Read Entire Post

The Last Cainanite on The Good Life in Prison

The Last Cainanite — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 11:17:29 EST

powerb47 said in comment # 17...

Thanks for clarifying emotional pain. May I ask if/how mental retardation and homosexuality are useful and necessary evolutionary adaptations?

To follow up to what M.L. wrote, mental retardation is not an evolutionary adaptation or an unfortunate consequence of one, at least as far as we know. Also, it has different causes (and genetic mutations are more common than M.L. implied) but many of them go back to the fact that human (and that of other living beings) reproduction and development are error prone. It is thus a consequence of relying on a system that evolved as it has.

I have to disagree with M.L. on homosexuality not being adaptive. Maybe it ultimately isn't, but it would be very unusual for ~5% of the population to have a trait that is ultimately detrimental to passing your genes to the next generation. Take sickle cell anemia as an example. It would have been selected out of the population long time ago if it wasn't for partial resistance to malaria it confers to the carriers of the mutated gene.
A possible benefit to homosexuality that has been proposed is population control - homosexual individuals would be much less likely (and bisexual somewhat less likely) to produce offspring when mating.
Causes of homosexuality are not completely known, but it most likely is some combination of genetic and development a causes. I.e. it's certainly not the case that there is a "gay gene" that causes one to become homosexual when two copies of the gene are present. Much more likely is that a gene (or a group of genes) still needs some sort environmental trigger.
One example is that men with older brothers have a higher likelihood of being gay with the effect being more pronounced the more brothers a subject has. This suggest that fetii with a genetic susceptibility react to a maternal factor in utero. Quite interesting. This also suggests a possible selection pressure. Younger gay brothers would not compete for females with older brothers and could assist in raising their offspring - ensuring better survival chances of that offspring which is also beneficial to the younger brother because he is still closely related.
This part is somewhat speculative of course, but as I said, I would find it very surprising if homosexuality did not have some benefit elating to natural selection and evolution. ... Read Entire Post

The Last Cainanite on The Smart Money is on God

The Last Cainanite — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 14:09:33 EST

M.L. already did a good job answering this post of yours, but let me give it my two cents as well.

powerb47 said in comment # 28...

I don't doubt that for a second. What are some examples though?

M.L. already mentioned the James ossuary, so I give you the Jordan Lead Codices.

powerb47 said in comment # 28...

Are you & LC telling me there are no actual creationist scientists? There used to be but maybe this trait has evolved out of contemporary scientists.

There certainly are a few creationists with scientific credentials, although they are few and far between (and usually heavily publicized by creationist organizations). But that has nothing to do with my comment, as M.L. explained.

powerb47 said in comment # 28...
In the last few weeks, I've tried to take Erik's advice to read up on evolution. I have seen mounds of plausible hypotheses & some discredited experiments but no "uncontrovertable" evidence. Please point me to it.

In adition to M.L.'s links, let me suggest this book by Richard Dawkins, "The Greatest Show on Earth" which focuses on scientific evidence for Darwinian evolution. ... Read Entire Post

The Last Cainanite on The Smart Money is on God

The Last Cainanite — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 13:58:06 EST

M.L. said in comment # 29...
Well, it's really not that complicated; LC said it makes perfect sense because he obviously thinks it makes perfect sense. However the theory is without it's critics, most notable among them probably being biologist Richard Dawkins and philosopher of science Daniel Dennett. The link below gives a little info on the controversy and gives some references for more information. Most of the arguments over PE are not so much over whether it is true or not as they are about its significance and whether it actually represented a new idea. Some have also charged that Gould took more credit for coming up with the idea than he deserved.

That's a good summary of the controversy. It's not so much that the main idea is that controversial, but the devil is, as always, in the details.

Also, as an aside, some geneticists, all modern humans are descendee from an original population of just 600 mating individuals.

Is that original population, or the bottleneck that occurred some 70,000 years ago due to a supervolcano eruption?

ML, Allen really needs to bring the user accounts back. It used to be possible to log in and then you could delete an error laden post and replace it with a corrected one. In fact, even though Allen removed that feature, I am still logged in (thanks be to cookies!) on only one of my computers, and use that one to post, because it gives me a graceful way to correct my errors. Why Allen decided to remove the log in option from the website is a mystery comparable to the mystery of the trinity (ok, that one's no mystery really, early Christian theologians simply wanted to have three gods while still pretending to be monotheists). ... Read Entire Post

The Last Cainanite on The Smart Money is on God

The Last Cainanite — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 13:41:03 EST

Erik said in comment # 33...
Question for traditionalists:
If Adam and Eve were the first people why does human DNA contain fossilized endogenous retroviruses?

... same fossilized ERVs that chimps have, which shows that we share a common ancestor with them.

Also- in Genesis God is afraid that the his pets will eat the tree of life and become like gods themselves. Does that really make sense to you?

It hardly makes much sense in the standard orthodox Christian model of theology. But what I find interesting is that, according to the story, it worked! We have become "like one of [the gods], knowing good and evil". Point that out next time a fundy admonishes you that you want to be "your own god" or that scientists "play god" with reproductive technology.

One more thing. The Genesis 2-3 story parallels the story of Prometheus/Pandora from Greek Mythology on one hand and Enkidu from the Epic of Gilgamesh. In other words, the J author is influenced by mythology from both East and West of him (or her, as some suggested J author was a female). To deny these parallels is not only incredibly naive but also a textbook case of special pleading ("sure, these other stories are myths, but Genesis is sober history") to boot.

M.L. said in comment # 34...
Another thing I think traditionalists should consider is the fact that Adam and Eve are being punished for having eaten from "The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil", so they couldn't possibly be fairly held accountable for doing something bad when before they ate the apple they had no knowledge of good and evil. It makes no sense and additionally contradicts the Christian idea that humans get their sense of right and wrong from god. Well, Adam and Eve obviously didn't; they had to eat the apple.

And also they got it from the Serpent, the Prometheus-like character, while Yahwe (the Zeus-like character) didn't want them to have it.
Note that "knowledge of good and evil" might not mean merely moral knowledge. Some scholars believe that the phrase may be translated "knowledge, both good and evil" and is thus a merism, where a pair of opposites (like "from A to Z") stand for the whole thing.

It's obviously a moral fable intended to 'explain' why people suffer and die and where our knowledge of good and evil come from. To take it literally is absurd.

Oh, it is definitely an etiological myth. It also attempts to explain many other things people wandered about, like painful and dangerous childbirth among humans, why snakes are so dangerous to humans, and why they have no legs etc. To take is seriously as history is childish really. On the other hand, it should be taken seriously as a myth.

Allen said in comment # 35...
The language of the Catechism is helpful here. MOre reasons to be Catholic :)
�the account of the fall in Genesis � uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.�

I don't know about that one. A half-hearted attempt at a dodge ("figurative language" without committing as to which bits are to be regarded as figurative), but still affirms historical Adam and Eve, even though nobody has yet, to my knowledge, satisfactorily demonstrated how a historical Adam and Eve would fit into what we know about Earth history from science, including genetic diversity among humans and clear evidence (fossil, molecular and genetic, an evolutionary trifecta if you will) of descent of humans from earlier hominid species, including a common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees that lived some 7 million years ago.
Allen, I invite you to do just that. Surely, with the help of the infallible Cataclysm, uhm I mean Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, it should be a doable task, one would think.

Also Allen, if you believe in historical Adam and Eve, do you also believe in a historical Noah and his Deluge? Why or why not?
... Read Entire Post

The Last Cainanite on We're Better than You Think

The Last Cainanite — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 12:54:07 EST

Allen Hunt said in the OP...
1) The dream factor. Millions (perhaps billions) of humans in other countries long to come here because they know that America is still the place where they can fulfill their dreams. No other country captures the imagination and the delight of the possible like America.

And we fail to capitalize on that potential because we tolerate huge levels of illegal immigration - mostly uneducated people from a single ethnolinguistic group - which means that we can take less legal immigrants from diverse ethnoliguistic groups (i.e. people from all over the world, and not primarily Spanish speakers from Mexico and Central America) that are educated and either already know or are willing to learn English.

2) Innovation. Dreams become reality here because 1/3 of all the money invested in research and development is spent in the U.S. And we account for nearly 1/2 of all the world's patents.

And the Teabaggers, and by extension the modern Republican Party which is beholden to them, are doing their best to make that history, by cutting US spending for science and research. See, companies are good at funding R&D for things that are close to being ready to be turned into actual products. But that would have never happened without basic research which is proper domain of government, through things like NSF, NIH and NASA.
One amazing project which Republicans want to scrap is the replacement for the magnificent, but aging Hubble and Spitzer infrared space telescopes. James Webb space telescope would be able to peer deeper into the universe, and thus farther back into time, than present day instruments, among other things. It would sport a 21 ft main mirror, compared to 8 ft mirror of Hubble, and it would be located about one million miles from the Earth at the L2 Lagrangian point. Yet Republicans now want to axe the project, while at the same time rejecting any cuts to military spending or any revenue increases. We can't remain science and research superpower with policies like these!

3) Economic power. Michael O'Hanlon at the Brookings Institute has demonstrated that about 70% of global economic power is organized around us and our alliances. We drive the world's economic engine, and we couple that with a birth rate to sustain such prowess. China, in contrast, does not.

No surprise there, given that US allies tend to be developed countries like those in Europe and also countries like Japan. But I still don't get your obsession with birth rates Allen. Clearly, countries with relatively low birth rate are much better to live in than those that have a high birth rate. And according to CIA World Factbook, China (12.29/1000) is not that far behind US (13.83/1000) anyway. ... Read Entire Post

The Last Cainanite on BackStage Tours

The Last Cainanite — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 11:48:16 EST

Allen said on Twitter/Facebook...
Ever have one of those days where you just taste the immense goodness of God? Today is one of those days.

Did you have a particularly tasty communion cracker at church Allen? Jesus, our Lard and Savor!

Allen said on Twitter/Facebook...
New data shows we are heading toward a 50% obesity rate in the next 20 years. Yet, gluttony is the one sin you never hear anything about. We are literally eating ourselves to death.

While obesity is a big problem (and aren't you contributing to it by promoting a fast food joint of all things!?) with which I struggle myself, these obesity figures are overblown because they rely on the wholly inadequate BMI which only takes into account height and weight of a person, without taking into account things like frame or muscle-to-fat ratio. Thus, most people with an athletic build are considered "overweight" by default because they pack more muscle tissue than your average couch potato.
And what do you mean we never hear anything about gluttony? ... Read Entire Post

Allen on The Smart Money is on God

Allen — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:28:10 EST

The language of the Catechism is helpful here. MOre reasons to be Catholic :)

�the account of the fall in Genesis � uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.� >>>>> Read Entire Post

Erik on The Smart Money is on God

Erik — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 10:32:17 EST

Question for traditionalists:
If Adam and Eve were the first people why does human DNA contain fossilized endogenous retroviruses?

Also- in Genesis God is afraid that the his pets will eat the tree of life and become like gods themselves. Does that really make sense to you?
>>>>> Read Entire Post

Erik on Centering Harry Potter

Erik — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 10:27:27 EST

M.L. said in comment # 29...
I like you power47 and don't 'mean to be mean' here, but I think the facts available to us in the 21st century demand that, if we want to be people or faith, that faith has to be a faith informed by reason, not an exercise in sophistry or rationalizationng the implausible.

I agree. Powerb47 seems like a good person who is honestly seeking truth. I have been actively engaging with Christians for about 4 or 5 years now and I can't tell you how wearying it is to 'debate' some of these people. Usually they (1) tell personal anecdote (2) quote Bible (3) explain plan of salvation and (4) repeat above steps until time to run away.
It's not upsetting to me that someone disagrees- it's just depressing and kind of insulting that I've spent my life seeking and seeking and learning and questioning and thinking and trying to reason all this stuff out and they just go with whatever bullshit comes along. ... Read Entire Post

M.L. on Centering Harry Potter

M.L. — Sat, 27 Aug 2011 20:28:21 EST

... Likewise, in the last paragraph, I meant to type "people OF faith", not "people OR faith". >>>>> Read Entire Post

M.L. on Centering Harry Potter

M.L. — Sat, 27 Aug 2011 17:21:24 EST

Correction: In the first paragraph above, I meant to write:

"Your own words suggest the Bible is a flawed product OF fallible natural man, not a perfect supernatural being." >>>>> Read Entire Post

M.L. on Centering Harry Potter

M.L. — Sat, 27 Aug 2011 17:18:22 EST

But the Bible must be held to a higher standard than your wife's memory, since it is claimed to be the inerrant word of God. There is something spectacularly contradictory in citing human error to support the notion that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Your own words suggest the Bible is a flawed product fallible natural man, not a perfect supernatural being.

Can you explain how someone purportedly spellbound by an omnipotent god and in essence being used as a sort of writing instrument could yet make even the slightest error? And why is this omnipotent being so utterly inefficient? Why would He allow His most important message to be so imperfectly recorded?

Surely the idea that the Bible was authored by God would be far more convincing if it were magically written in the sky above us. If the Bible had, for example, centuries before Einstein, said "E = MC^2", skeptics would have a lot of explaining. But it doesn't; in fact, it reads precisely as we would expect it to read if it were written by pre-scientific, superstitious, Bronze Age desert dwellers.

I like you power47 and don't 'mean to be mean' here, but I think the facts available to us in the 21st century demand that, if we want to be people or faith, that faith has to be a faith informed by reason, not an exercise in sophistry or rationalizationng the implausible.... Read Entire Post

M.L. on The Good Life in Prison

M.L. — Sat, 27 Aug 2011 16:52:36 EST

Power47,

Mental retardation is usually not related to genetic inheritance, and while it can be caused by a chromosome disorder, it is only rarely caused by a genetic mutation. It is NOT an evolutionary adaptation, and the fact that mental retardation caused by a genetic mutation is so rare is in fact consistent with Darwinian evolution; carriers of this gene are extremely unlikely to reproduce and pass on the gene, and for most of human history would likely not have have survived very long.

The precise causses of homosexuality are not known, but it certainly isn't an evolutionary adaptation. First of all, homosexuals are obviously less likely to pass on their genes than heterosexuals, so if there is a 'gay gene', it would be very rare, and indeed, the best data suggests that homosexuals are only about 1% of the general population (the oft quoted 10% figure is the result of a flawed study involving prison inmates that has long been discredited).

Note also that if homosexuality is caused by a gene, it could not be reasonably considered a sin, and if it is not caused by a gene, it could not be considered an evolutionary adaptation.

Of course, even if it is caused by a gene, the fact that there are so few homosexuals and that they are less likely to pass on their genes would be consistent with Darwinian evolution, not evidence against it.

There is some evidence suggesting that homosexuality may have a physical cause; one study found that the brains of homosexuals differed in some ways from those of heterosexuals. However, it is not clear if this difference is the cause if homosexuality or if homosexuality causes the difference. However, the difference is probably not genetic, and even if it is, its rareness is again consistent with Darwinian evolution, not evidence against it, for reasons previously stated above.

... Read Entire Post

M.L. on The Smart Money is on God

M.L. — Sat, 27 Aug 2011 16:11:06 EST

That's "...surely it would require no more than two of the original 10,000 TO "eat the apple", not "not "TWO eat the apple".

Also, I meant to write "some geneticists BELIEVE all modern humans are descendeD from an original population of just 600 mating individuals".

Yeah, these accursed smartphones and the inevitable autocorrect typos!... Read Entire Post

M.L. on The Smart Money is on God

M.L. — Sat, 27 Aug 2011 16:03:37 EST

Allen,

If you still read these old threads, I have something to point out to you that you may find interesting.

On your show last weekend (I think) you had mentioned how, though you were a "traditionalist" that believed in a literal Adam and Eve, you wouldn't feel as though your faith would be diminished if indeed the original human population consisted of about 10,000 individuals. Well, I am obviously not a "traditionalist", but I'd like to point out to you that "original sin" wouldn't't require all 10,000 'first humans' to 'eat the apple' as it were; if the whole human race could be considered 'fallen' solely due to the actions of two people in the garden of Eden as per the "traditionalist" view, surely it would require no more than two of the original 10,000 two "eat the apple". So you wouldn't necessarily have to do as many theological gymnastics to square the "non-traditional" view with the more "traditional" view as you call it.

Honestly, I don't know why you don't just accept the overwhelming evidence for evolution; the Pope does. You wouldn't have to compromise your faith to do so.

Also, as an aside, some geneticists, all modern humans are descendee from an original population of just 600 mating individuals.... Read Entire Post

M.L. on The Smart Money is on God

M.L. — Sat, 27 Aug 2011 15:09:08 EST

Alas, more autocorrect typos:

The first sentence in my fourth response above should begin "First of all, YOU seem", not "First of all, NEED seem".

The second sentence in my last response should say "However, the theory is NOT without it's critics".

... Read Entire Post

M.L. on The Smart Money is on God

M.L. — Sat, 27 Aug 2011 14:44:02 EST

powerb47 �said in comment # 28... I don't doubt that for a second. What are some examples though?

See the link below:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2008-10-18-ossuary_N.htm

powerb47 �said in comment # 28...�Are you & LC telling me there are no actual creationist scientists? There used to be but maybe this trait has evolved out of contemporary scientists.

What LC and I said was that the hoaxes you mentioned (e.g. Piltdown Man, archeoraptor) were exposed by evolutionary scientists, not creationists or clerics. I don't understand why you read that as saying there are no 'creation scientists'. There are 'creation scientists', but they have no credibility within mainstream scientific circles, NOT, as is often alleged by creationists and their defenders, because of some conspiracy to silence them, but because their 'research' does not meet the established criterion of rigorous scientific methodology. They deny long and well established facts of nature, such as the age of the earth and stars and a myriad of other well established facts that cannot be squared with a literal interpretation of scripture. It's pseudo-science.

powerb47 �said in comment # 28...�In the last few weeks, I've tried to take Erik's advice to read up on evolution. I have seen mounds of plausible hypotheses & some discredited experiments but no "uncontrovertable" evidence. Please point me to it.

You must not be looking very hard. Here's a good start:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_01

powerb47 �said in comment # 28...�Why? What is the scientific explanation?

First of all, need seem to be overlooking the fact that while transitional forms on the species level are rare (and do note that this is freely admitted by evolutionary scientists) they are not altogether absent; the presence of�one well established species level evolutionary progression would be enough to confirm Darwin's theory and refute creationism, but in fact�there are several very well documented evolutionary progressions on the species level, including one of the most dramatic of all species level transitions, that of cetaceans from land dwelling animals to streamlined whales and dolphins. The evolution of the horse from rabbit sized five toed animals to their present form is very well documented. �Unfortunately for creationists,�there are numerous key transitional forms documenting the evolution of humans from ape-like ancestors.

The scientific explanation for why transitional forms are rare on the species level has to do with the fact that the conditions required for �fossils to form are rare; the vast majority of animals do not leave behind fossil remains. The shorter the time frame considered, the number of fossils we can expect to find will be fewer, and the number of gaps in a given species' evolutionary progression will be higher. When you consider the evolution of larger taxonomical groups, you are looking at much larger timeframes and therefore find far more fossils and abundant transitional forms. All of this supports Darwinian evolution and refutes creationism, not the other way round.�

You should know that there is a school of thought as it were sometimes called progressive creationism' or 'theistic evolution', whose proponents accept Darwinian evolution as documented in the fossil record but argue that evolution is the way god created things. This would be, for example, the position advocated by the Roman Catholic church (hello Allen!) and many evolutionary scientists who are also believers, such as Francis Collins and Kenneth Miller In fact, here is a link that perhaps both you and Allen would appreciate:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/08/1/l_081_01.html

powerb47 �said in comment # 28...�But LC says it makes perfect sense. What gives?

Well, it's really not that complicated; LC said it makes perfect sense because he obviously thinks it makes perfect sense. However the theory is without it's critics, most notable among them probably being biologist Richard Dawkins and philosopher of science Daniel Dennett. The link below gives a little info on the controversy and gives some references for more information. Most of the arguments over PE are not so much over whether it is true or not as they are about its significance and whether it actually represented a new idea. Some have also charged that Gould took more credit for coming up with the idea than he deserved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould#Controversies

Here's a good FAQ on PE:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html
... Read Entire Post

powerb47 on The Smart Money is on God

powerb47 — Tue, 23 Aug 2011 08:59:00 EST

M.L. said in comment # 20...
First of all, there is no field in archaeology more littered with fraudulent discoveries than biblical archaeology; there have been far more hoaxes involving things claimed to be Biblical artifacts than hoaxes like Piltdown Man or the mod recent archaeoraptor.

I don't doubt that for a second. What are some examples though?

M.L. said in comment # 20...
the Piltdown Man and archaeoraptor hoaxes were both exposed as frauds by scientist, not clerics or creations

and

The Last Cainanite said in comment # 27...
Fraudulent fossils have been exposed as such by actual scientists, not by creationists.

Are you & LC telling me there are no actual creationist scientists? There used to be but maybe this trait has evolved out of contemporary scientists.

M.L. said in comment # 20...
the mounds of uncontrovertable evidence for evolution

In the last few weeks, I've tried to take Erik's advice to read up on evolution. I have seen mounds of plausible hypotheses & some discredited experiments but no "uncontrovertable" evidence. Please point me to it.

M.L. said in comment # 20...
transitional forms are rare at the species level but not altogether absent, and transitional forms are abundant between larger taxnomical groups,

Why? What is the scientific explanation?

M.L. said in comment # 20...
the 'notorious' Richard Dawning and fellow prominent "New Atheist" writer Daniel Dennett are extremely critical of punctuated equilibrium

But LC says it makes perfect sense. What gives?... Read Entire Post

powerb47 on The Good Life in Prison

powerb47 — Mon, 22 Aug 2011 17:40:19 EST

powerb47 said in comment # 15...
Pain is an useful and necessary evolutionary adaptation.

Thanks for clarifying emotional pain. May I ask if/how mental retardation and homosexuality are useful and necessary evolutionary adaptations? >>>>> Read Entire Post

powerb47 on Centering Harry Potter

powerb47 — Mon, 22 Aug 2011 17:35:17 EST

The Last Cainanite said in comment # 27...
If they (Biblical authors) are wrong about things we can independently verify, like matters of science and history, why should be trust them about things that can't be independently verified, like nature/existence of God or means of salvation?

The same reason I trust my wife's love for me, even though she said our trip to France was in 2007, when it was really in 2008. She's human; so were the Bible authors. >>>>> Read Entire Post

powerb47 on His Name was Pruden

powerb47 — Mon, 22 Aug 2011 17:29:03 EST

The Last Cainanite said in comment # 17...
What you are arguing for is schools saying "well you are allowed to drive at 16 but you really should wait until you are married". Huh?

The Last Cainanite said in comment # 17...
There is a legal driving age as a legal age of consent (in most states they are equal at 16). What you are arguing for is schools saying "well you are allowed to drive at 16 but you really should wait until you are married". Huh?

OK. So now you're adding a caveat that the law constrains my independently thought out decision about when I am ready for sex & who I will have it with? What about sodomy or adult sex with a minor? I think these are still illegal in various places so these are off limits? Just trying to understand your position completely...

The Last Cainanite said in comment # 17...
I refer you yet again to stark differences in how Western Europe and US approach both the issues of alcohol and sex among young people and the results. Are European teens genetically more mature and predisposed to a "balanced view of life"? I don't think so. The difference comes from how they are treated!

OK. Is the fact that Western Europeans are not replacing their population an intended or unintended consequence?

The Last Cainanite said in comment # 17...
I think you know full well what I mean.

I really don't. Please remember I am one of those less educated more religious types whose parents raised him on a way too narrow definition of sex. I'm sincerely inviting you to enlighten me on the "full" definition of sex. You are free to decline of course.

The Last Cainanite said in comment # 17...
You have a very stereotypical view of teenage boys.

And you LC have a very idealistic view of teenage boys! Oh the irony!... Read Entire Post

The Last Cainanite on Centering Harry Potter

The Last Cainanite — Mon, 22 Aug 2011 13:27:54 EST

powerb47 said in comment # 26...
But it does not explain, for example, the unconditional love shown to all by my special needs niece whose brain is not "normal". I can't scientifically prove it, but I believe there's more to human love than VTA & serotonin. Why not? It does explain it, at least in principle. I do not see the mystery here.
That is not to say that the fact that your and your niece's brains are a complex, albeit differently structured, network of neurons swapping neurotransmitters around should detract you from enjoying your niece and her love, just as knowing about chromatic dispersion of sunlight shouldn't detract anyone from enjoying a rainbow or a sunset.

powerb47 said in comment # 26...

Their words are authoritative & inspired.

If they contain falsehood, in what way can their words be said to be authoritative and inspired?

powerb47 said in comment # 26...
My words follow, not the authors. They believe it is a resource that tells us what we need to know about God created by human beings in partnership with the Holy Spirit. It is a tool that we use in developing a personal relationship with Christ.

If they (Biblical authors) are wrong about things we can independently verify, like matters of science and history, why should be trust them about things that can't be independently verified, like nature/existence of God or means of salvation?... Read Entire Post

The Last Cainanite on His Name was Pruden

The Last Cainanite — Mon, 22 Aug 2011 13:15:15 EST

powerb47 said in comment # 16...

So these young independent thinkers can make their own fully informed & objective choice, that's why. If schools/govt/RCC is wrong to limit info, who are you to do the same?

Schools are not limiting info the students can seek outside the schools, like parents and churches often do.
But schools should be limited, in the information they dispense, to scientific facts and not include religious dogma. "Premarital sex is a sin" or "Condoms are evil" is not something public school should "teach" kids.

powerb47 said in comment # 16...
Let's apply your driving analogy here, too. Since I decided myself that I was ready to drive when I was 12, my school should have taught me how to do it safely, then nothing should have prohibited me from getting a license. That is my choice after all.

There is a legal driving age as a legal age of consent (in most states they are equal at 16). What you are arguing for is schools saying "well you are allowed to drive at 16 but you really should wait until you are married". Huh?

powerb47 said in comment # 16...
Please elaborate on what you mean. It seems to me that developing self-control and discipline usually requires some self-denial.

Well it is a matter of degree. To me the difference is this: if I refrain from eating any bacon whatsoever, just because some old book says that God prohibits it, that is self denial. If I refrain from eating a pound of fried bacon daily, that is self control.

powerb47 said in comment # 16...

Again, an adult mindset. How many teens do you know that espouse a balanced approach to life?

I don't know. But your solution makes it more likely they will behave irresponsibly, not less so.
Take alcohol. In this country, because of a pressure group aptly named MADD, we have alcohol prohibition not only for underage teens but also for young adults. Is the result less binge drinking and alcohol related dysfunction or more? Definitely the latter. The same is with sex. If you tabooise teenage sexuality you are more likely to get STDs, teenage pregnancies etc. I refer you yet again to stark differences in how Western Europe and US approach both the issues of alcohol and sex among young people and the results. Are European teens genetically more mature and predisposed to a "balanced view of life"? I don't think so. The difference comes from how they are treated!

powerb47 said in comment # 16...

Please enlighten me then on the full definition of sex.

I think you know full well what I mean.

powerb47 said in comment # 16...

So noted, your opinion. To me, there is a big difference between natural & artificial. Yes, most of the time the same end is achieved, but the means are quite different.

I think it is distinction without a difference. Whether you use intricate planning with counting days and taking temperature (or even examining vaginal mucus) or placing a latex sheath between the penis and the vagina, what's the big difference?
I seriously don't get the philosophical justification for banning all these methods of contraception but allowing this one very intricate method because it is "natural". Sounds like an obsession more suited to a bunch of hemp-wearing vegan hippies than to Catholics to be honest. :)

Never torn through a condom? Never had a girl lie to you about taking the pill? It only takes once.

Ever looked down to chance the station on your radio and almost caused a wreck? Ever had to break/swerve wildly to avoid a car about to cause a wreck with you?
That's my point. Life is risky and the solution is not to avoid activities that are risky, but to act as responsible as we can.
Why single out sex, by the way? Answer: because the Church has such a sex-negative attitude.

powerb47 said in comment # 16...
That's OK for nicely "balanced" adults like yourself. Ironically, this wisdom is also frequently alluded to by addicts. You'll hear this quite frequently on a show called Intervention on A&E late Monday nights.

Doesn't make it any less true of course.

LC, you must have been a very mature teen. They do exist, but the problem is a lot of teens reject the prudence of balance. Most teens are damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead people, especially when it comes to pleasure. To extend your driving analogy, that's one reason why they pay more insurance.

My driver's ed analogy was that no driver's ed class would be "stay at home only driver's ed" where the only thing thought to kids is that the only way to 100% avoid being in a car wreck is to stay at home. The rest of the class would be spent on exaggerating the risks of car wrecks and the teacher would not be allowed to talk about how to minimize risk of being in a car wreck because that would only encourage kids to drive. Sounds ridiculous? It is, and it directly corresponds to how "abstinence only" miseducation is structured.

powerb47 said in comment # 16...

Maybe this works for most girls but here is the typical teenage boy translation: wooo-hooo, since I've BEEN ready since I got pubic hair, Dad just green-lighted me to boink anybody I want! Bring it on!!

You have a very stereotypical view of teenage boys. ... Read Entire Post

The Last Cainanite on The Good Life in Prison

The Last Cainanite — Mon, 22 Aug 2011 12:41:29 EST

powerb47 said in comment # 15...

It seems like you're talking about just physical pain/suffering; what about emotional pain/suffering? Would you mind elaborating further?

I think emotional pain/suffering is similar to physical pain/suffering.
Empathy is important and even necessary in social species to induce individuals to work together.
But just like physical pain is necessary, but can lead to debilitating suffering, so can emotional pain. ... Read Entire Post

The Last Cainanite on The Smart Money is on God

The Last Cainanite — Mon, 22 Aug 2011 12:36:04 EST

powerb47 said in comment # 19...

May I ask if you are equally incensed over scientifically verified evolution lies like the Piltdown Man & the Archeoraptor? How about Gould's non-theological miracle of punctuated equilibrium, conveniently devised to fit a fossil record unsupportive of Darwin?

Fraudulent fossils have been exposed as such by actual scientists, not by creationists. And punctuated equilibrium makes a lot of sense, and is in no way a "non-theological miracle" as creationists claim. And far from being contradictory to Darwinian evolution, it is a further development of it. ... Read Entire Post

The Last Cainanite on The Smart Money is on God

The Last Cainanite — Mon, 22 Aug 2011 12:28:34 EST

Allen said in comment # 12...
Lawyer, "religious" is irrelevant. The question is what % believe in a higher power. The practice of religion is another question entirely. As is the question of the nature of God, whether Christianity comes closest or not to understanding that. Your question is merely the existence of any god(s) whatsoever. That has zero to do with "religious."

First, "religious" is highly relevant, because religion is the vessel almost all theists carry their belief in god(s), yes, even those that insist that "Christianity is not a religion but a relationship".
Second, your 98% figure comes from only 2% of US population explicitly identifying themselves as "atheist". But it is far from true that therefore the other 98% have some belief in god(s) or a supernatural "higher power". Fact is, because of propaganda and discrimination by Christians, many atheists would not identify as such. But rest assured, we are more numerous than you might think. ... Read Entire Post

The Last Cainanite on The Smart Money is on God

The Last Cainanite — Mon, 22 Aug 2011 12:24:05 EST

powerb47 said in comment # 6...

Forgive my ignorance here, but what are some examples of this? Do you mean like gravity, evolution, or the big bang? Or are you referring to things you've mentioned in other threads, like neuroscience?

I specifically meant things like the Sun, hurricanes, etc. Things that are very powerful, completely natural, but seen as divine by our ancestors because they didn't know any better. What is sad is that our contemporaries should know better, yet many of them see gods hiding in the gaps of our knowledge.

Allen said in comment # 8...

Again, eradicating belief from more than 98% of the populace is quite a life's mission since that "ignorance" sure seems to persist. :) But name-calling should get the job done.

Kinda like you maintain that 98% of the population is straight?
Your 98% figure for belief in god is seriously inflated of course, even for US. ... Read Entire Post

The Last Cainanite on The Smart Money is on God

The Last Cainanite — Mon, 22 Aug 2011 12:19:08 EST

allen said in comment # 5...
ML - forgot to mention, you are right. I am vain.

Well at least you admit it.

I did not use my terms to make my point well. By definition, atheism denies the existence of God. Atheism therefore renders all religions as entirely wrong about God. Not partially or by degree, but totally wrong. A Muslim might disagree with a Jew about the nature of God. LIkewise a Mormon with a Baptist. But those are variations of degree. An atheist (not an agnostic) tells all of them they are entirely wrong about God (not necessarily about morals or values). A very different truth claim altogether.

You seem to think that is some sort of slam dunk argument against atheism. Sure, we atheists do not believe in god. And we do think all theistic religions are wrong about the existence of God. So? How does that make us being right any less likely?

Given the divine impulse that humans have always felt and continue to feel (certainly not diminished over time by evolution), to dismiss all religions in all times and all places as entirely wrong about God/god is a very bold statement indeed.

You are begging the question. You assume, a priori, that belief in god(s) is due to a "divine impulse" but that is of course contingent on god being real. You are arguing in circles. ... Read Entire Post

The Last Cainanite on The Smart Money is on God

The Last Cainanite — Mon, 22 Aug 2011 12:14:23 EST

Allen said in comment # 3...
ML - what is arrogant is to deny the existence of any god whatsoever. Atheism would say that every religion is not only partially wrong but entirely so. Now that is a bold claim. To say that the 98.4% of Americans, and virtually every culture since the beginning of time, is ENTIRELY wrong. The intellectual hubris is staggering.

No, not entirely wrong, just wrong about this one detail - existence of god. Big difference.

LC - Given the length of your response to a brief 174 word observation, methinks you doth protest too much.

Now you are criticizing me for trying to have a nuanced, detailed and thought out response to your often simplistic claims. ... Read Entire Post

Erik on The Smart Money is on God

Erik — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 20:57:51 EST

One word wrong in ML's post, therefore it must be entirely unreliable. Just like evolution.
>>>>> Read Entire Post

M.L. on The Smart Money is on God

M.L. — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 18:29:43 EST

That's TAXONOMICAL groups in the second paragraph, not "economical". Damn these smartphone and their accursed autocorrect! >>>>> Read Entire Post

M.L. on The Smart Money is on God

M.L. — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 18:14:52 EST

power47,

First of all, there is no field in archaeology more littered with fraudulent discoveries than biblical archaeology; there have been far more hoaxes involving things claimed to be Biblical artifacts than hoaxes like Piltdown Man or the mod recent archaeoraptor. Furthermore, the Piltdown Man and archaeoraptor hoaxes were both exposed as frauds by scientist, not clerics or creations, and no scientist alive claims denies Piltdown Man and Archaeoraptor were hoaxes. This does nothing to diminish the mounds of uncontrovertable evidence for evolution, and the fact that the hoaxes were exposed scientists and are accepted as hoaxes by science demonstrates the strength of science, its willingness to subject its claims to objective scrutiny and reverse its claim when the evidence demands it,unlike dogmatic religion.

Also, the fossil record most certainly supports the predictions of evolution; transitional forms are rare at the species level but not altogether absent, and transitional forms are abundant between larger economical groups, which is even more dawning of creations and supportive of Darwin. However, many evolutionary scientists, including the 'notorious' Richard Dawning and fellow prominent "New Atheist" writer Daniel Dennett are extremely critical of punctuated equilibrium.
... Read Entire Post

powerb47 on The Smart Money is on God

powerb47 — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 15:45:40 EST

Erik said in comment # 17...
I continue to be incensed by what these fake frauds (or genuine frauds or whatever we want to call them) are doing.

May I ask if you are equally incensed over scientifically verified evolution lies like the Piltdown Man & the Archeoraptor? How about Gould's non-theological miracle of punctuated equilibrium, conveniently devised to fit a fossil record unsupportive of Darwin? ... Read Entire Post

powerb47 on The Smart Money is on God

powerb47 — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 11:17:00 EST

Lawyer in Atlanta said in comment # 10...
Let me ask you, what % of people in SWEDEN are religious? Other than the terrorist christian who shot up 100's of fine secular folks.

I think you mean NORWAY & here is an excerpt of the Christianity of Breivik from http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-mainmenu-26/europe-mainmenu-35/8358-despite-claims-norway-terrorist-hardly-christian where you can also link to his rambling manifesto.
Breivik also denied that he had a relationship with Christ. �If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian,� he added toward the end of the manifesto. �Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian.�
OK crazy man, if you say so. ... Read Entire Post

Erik on The Smart Money is on God

Erik — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 10:22:17 EST

I agree with ML's comments though I don't blame L IN ATL for being upset. I was/am very angry about some of the lies I was told about religion growing up and I continue to be incensed by what these fake frauds (or genuine frauds or whatever we want to call them) are doing.
Though I disagree with Allen he is a good guy, and I consider him a friend (don't tell anybody).

>>>>> Read Entire Post

powerb47 on The Smart Money is on God

powerb47 — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 10:11:35 EST

Lawyer in Atlanta said in comment # 15...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wUVXEmJRGns

Mr. Harris is very eloquent indeed & makes some thought-provoking points. He speaks a lot about a morally reprehensible God who would allow the deaths of thousands of children each hour. Can someone confirm whether Mr. Harris is pro-life or pro-abortion? Just wondering.... Read Entire Post

Lawyer in Atlanta on The Smart Money is on God

Lawyer in Atlanta — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 08:29:21 EST

Furthermore, Christians are screwed up in the head.

Exhibit A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wUVXEmJRGns >>>>> Read Entire Post

Lawyer in Atlanta on The Smart Money is on God

Lawyer in Atlanta — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 08:14:15 EST

Allen,

Your point that 98% of the world believes in a "higher power" means almost nothing. As M.L. and LC have already stated, "higher power" is a very vague term. Do I believe in a "higher power"? Maybe, depending on how you define "higher power". I believe our sun is more "powerful" than me...do I now believe in a higher power? Am I now a theist according to you? All you are discussing are systematical technicalities. Some would even claim you are talking about nothing at all.

... Read Entire Post

M.L. on The Smart Money is on God

M.L. — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 21:50:33 EST

I agree Eric. "Lawyer in Atlanta" MAY be one of those "ideologically driven atheist activist types" I referred to; perhaps a subsequent post may dissuade me of that impression.

I think most reasonable people would conclude, based on the available evidence, that Allen is a very good guy, even if he believes some things that those of us who are more skeptical consider dubious. To suggest he is some sort of money grubbing fraud is absurd. >>>>> Read Entire Post