(NDC) WORD!!!
RickNBarbInSD
Kirk McElhearn
> http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/11/23/dawkins.darwin.atheism/index.html
I'm torn between agreeing with him (which I do, strongly) and feeling
that he's going at all this with a bit too much agressivity. While I am
an atheist, I don't feel comfortable attacking others for their
(admittedly wacky) beliefs. On the other hand, having those beliefs
means they believe in other things, like WMDs in Iraq, homeopathy, and
Sarah Palin. It's a tough call.
Kirk
--
Kirkville: http://www.mcelhearn.com
Writings about more than just Macs
http://www.readinghenryjames.com
Reading Henry James
Lfh
> On 2009-11-25 00:01:00 +0100, RickNBarbInSD <rickdowl...@cox.net> said:
>
> >http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/11/23/dawkins.darwin.atheism/index.html
>
> I'm torn between agreeing with him (which I do, strongly) and feeling
> that he's going at all this with a bit too much agressivity. While I am
> an atheist, I don't feel comfortable attacking others for their
> (admittedly wacky) beliefs. On the other hand, having those beliefs
> means they believe in other things, like WMDs in Iraq, homeopathy, and
> Sarah Palin. It's a tough call.
These are the only choices we get? Bummer. Looks like "none of the
above" again.
Fred
Ray O'Hara
"Kirk McElhearn" <kir...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b0c6ab1$0$967$ba4a...@news.orange.fr...
> On 2009-11-25 00:01:00 +0100, RickNBarbInSD <rickd...@cox.net> said:
>
>> http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/11/23/dawkins.darwin.atheism/index.html
>
> I'm torn between agreeing with him (which I do, strongly) and feeling that
> he's going at all this with a bit too much agressivity. While I am an
> atheist, I don't feel comfortable attacking others for their (admittedly
> wacky) beliefs. On the other hand, having those beliefs means they believe
> in other things, like WMDs in Iraq, homeopathy, and Sarah Palin. It's a
> tough call.
>
> Kirk
Homeopathy?? what!!! you don't believe smelling candles or 1 duck liver made
into a million doses of medican can cure cancer?
you philistine you.
Ray O'Hara
"Lfh" <onetas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:327b296b-804c-4f07...@v15g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
there is no third option. its either all natural or magic.
what was god doing before creation? and if he always was why did he wait so
long to make everything?
Dawkins is very militant, personally I think if people want to believe in
talking snakes and magic who cares.
Dawkins is married to my pick as Dr Who's cutest companion.
Lfh
> "Lfh" <onetaste2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:327b296b-804c-4f07...@v15g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Nov 24, 3:22 pm, Kirk McElhearn <kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 2009-11-25 00:01:00 +0100, RickNBarbInSD <rickdowl...@cox.net> said:
>
> >> >http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/11/23/dawkins.darwin.atheism/index.html
>
> >> I'm torn between agreeing with him (which I do, strongly) and feeling
> >> that he's going at all this with a bit too much agressivity. While I am
> >> an atheist, I don't feel comfortable attacking others for their
> >> (admittedly wacky) beliefs. On the other hand, having those beliefs
> >> means they believe in other things, like WMDs in Iraq, homeopathy, and
> >> Sarah Palin. It's a tough call.
>
> > These are the only choices we get? Bummer. Looks like "none of the
> > above" again.
>
> > Fred
>
> there is no third option.
There isn't? This is going to come as a shock to a lot of people.
> its either all natural or magic.
That "natural" explanation sounds pretty "magical" to me.
> what was god doing before creation?
Nothing.
>and if he always was why did he wait so long to make everything?
He didn't.
> Dawkins is very militant, personally I think if people want to believe in
> talking snakes and magic who cares.
Dawkins is the high priest of atheism. It's a very well-paying, cushy
gig. Preaching to the choir requires no heavy lifting.
Fred
Citizen Jimserac
> On Nov 25, 2:10 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Lfh" <onetaste2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:327b296b-804c-4f07...@v15g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > On Nov 24, 3:22 pm, Kirk McElhearn <kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On 2009-11-25 00:01:00 +0100, RickNBarbInSD <rickdowl...@cox.net> said:
>
> > >> >http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/11/23/dawkins.darwin.atheism/index.html
>
> > >> I'm torn between agreeing with him (which I do, strongly) and feeling
> > >> that he's going at all this with a bit too much agressivity. While I am
> > >> an atheist, I don't feel comfortable attacking others for their
> > >> (admittedly wacky) beliefs. On the other hand, having those beliefs
> > >> Sarah Palin. It's a tough call.
>
> > > These are the only choices we get? Bummer. Looks like "none of the
> > > above" again.
>
> > > Fred
>
> > there is no third option.
>
> There isn't? This is going to come as a shock to a lot of people.
>
> > its either all natural or magic.
>
> That "natural" explanation sounds pretty "magical" to me.
>
> > what was god doing before creation?
>
> Nothing.
>
> >and if he always was why did he wait so long to make everything?
>
> He didn't.
>
> > Dawkins is very militant, personally I think if people want to believe in
> > talking snakes and magic who cares.
>
> Dawkins is the high priest of atheism. It's a very well-paying, cushy
> gig. Preaching to the choir requires no heavy lifting.
>
> Fred
Yeah, anti-Homeopathy has some bucks in it too; easy to attack since
it has no scientific basis (yet!) and every junk journalist, armchair
scientist and pseudo-sceptic who thinks their opinion and "common
sense" is worth more than that of a Nobel prize winning scientist (or
two or three) are busy attacking any who DARE mention or use it,
including perfectly capable and well qualified MD's and other health
professionals who know damn well when a person is cured by something
and when not.
This anti-scientific innuendo actually has a political agenda, the
ultimate control over the health industry forcing you to use only
those modalities which are "officially" approved based on
"evidence" (wink wink). (You know, handy and useful stuff like
chemotherapy, radiation, surgery and drugs so powerful they'll kill
you).
While Dawkins and the armchair sceptics are foaming at the mouth about
all the "woo", real scientists are quietly investigating anomalies in
high dilution research which show that even when all the molecules are
diluted away, some substances are still able to trigger biological
change as though the missing molecules were still there.
And all that bullshit about how Homeopathy is no better than placebo?
Tiresome to anyone who knows how to use a search engine.
Citizen Jimserac
Joker
I, for one, encourage the extensive use of homeopathy. One of the most
basic and serious problems affecting the human race is overpopulation.
The extensive use of homeopathic methods and remedies and the
rejection of science that is behind it will do much to help resolve
that issue. And bleeding, to rid the body of bad humors, I'm for that,
too. But not the wimpy kind with leeches. Let's open those veins with
a blade like God intended, people! Get healthy...
Sherry in Vermont
> On 2009-11-25 00:01:00 +0100, RickNBarbInSD <rickd...@cox.net> said:
>
>> http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/11/23/dawkins.darwin.atheism/index.html
>
> I'm torn between agreeing with him (which I do, strongly) and feeling
> that he's going at all this with a bit too much agressivity. While I am
> an atheist, I don't feel comfortable attacking others for their
> (admittedly wacky) beliefs. On the other hand, having those beliefs
> means they believe in other things, like WMDs in Iraq, homeopathy, and
> Sarah Palin. It's a tough call.
>
> Kirk
Do you know folks who are into homeopathy who are also believers in
Sarah Palin and WWDs in Iraq? Most of the folks I know who are
Republicans are not likely to use homeopathy at all.
Not saying it's not possible - just that those I know would not use
"alternative" medicine.
Sherry in Vermont
Ray O'Hara
"Citizen Jimserac" <jims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e0747980-8d77-4d56...@w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
Citizen Jimserac
======================================================================
Thanks for that info.
It's nice to know my investment in ALCOA is safe
Citizen Jimserac
Ah! then you must be for radiation, surgery and chemotherapy,
especially for people whose immune systems are already weakened by
cancer. The "evidence shows that they "work". How about some
Tamiflu to prevent flu from a virus which has already mutated to
bypass its preventative effects! Far better than blood letting and it
has "evidence" behind it too. No need to be modest, far more profit
in the pharmaceuticals than a leach farm. And... since this is a
music newsgroup, perhaps THIS link might prove informative:
Perhaps some clever innuendo and jokes about the thousands of MD's
actually using Homeopathy is in order. That such a preposterous
thing could work is as obvious nonsense as cell phones, trips to the
moon, lasers and the ridiculous idea that a single bomb could destroy
on entire city. Or could it be that they are not the self deluded
idiots that you think in which case is left the possibility that ...
Cit J.
Citizen Jimserac
> "CitizenJimserac" <jimse...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Not if Alzheimer's runs in the family.
Citizen Jimserac
Brad Greer
wrote:
>On 2009-11-25 00:01:00 +0100, RickNBarbInSD <rickd...@cox.net> said:
>
>> http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/11/23/dawkins.darwin.atheism/index.html
>
>I'm torn between agreeing with him (which I do, strongly) and feeling
>that he's going at all this with a bit too much agressivity. While I am
>an atheist, I don't feel comfortable attacking others for their
>(admittedly wacky) beliefs. On the other hand, having those beliefs
>means they believe in other things, like WMDs in Iraq, homeopathy, and
>Sarah Palin. It's a tough call.
>
That's a pretty whacky belief system you have yourself that says
belief in God = belief in all the things you list. You certainly have
your own fantasy belief system going here.
Joker
> Or could it be that they are not the self deluded
> idiots that you think in which case is left the possibility that ...
That they are simply self-deluded without the idiot part. One need not
be an idiot to be self-deluded. It happens all the time, don't worry
about it. The science behind most of those "miracles" (cell phones,
atomic bombs, etc.) you cite is pretty well known and understood.
There is no verifiable, repeatable science behind "homeopathy". It's
quackery, pure and simple, regardless of what MDs advocate for it.
Rock stars as medical experts impress even less.
By the way, non-belief in homeopathy (or any medical school of
thought) doesn't mean you're a shill for the AMA and Big Pharm, etc.
But, as I said, please continue to employ homeopathy. It's bound to
serve a purpose in the long run, for reasons I've explained before.
volkfolk
> On 2009-11-25 00:01:00 +0100, RickNBarbInSD <rickdowl...@cox.net> said:
>
> >http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/11/23/dawkins.darwin.atheism/index.html
>
> I'm torn between agreeing with him (which I do, strongly) and feeling
> that he's going at all this with a bit too much agressivity. While I am
> an atheist, I don't feel comfortable attacking others for their
> (admittedly wacky) beliefs. On the other hand, having those beliefs
> means they believe in other things, like WMDs in Iraq, homeopathy, and
> Sarah Palin. It's a tough call.
I know lots of very religous people who loathe the war in Iraq, Sarah
Palin and most "conservative" issues. Depends on which wacky church
they belong to.
Scot
volkfolk
> On 2009-11-24 18:22:25 -0500, Kirk McElhearn <kir...@gmail.com> said:
>
>
> >>http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/11/23/dawkins.darwin.atheism/index.html
>
> > I'm torn between agreeing with him (which I do, strongly) and feeling
> > that he's going at all this with a bit too much agressivity. While I am
> > an atheist, I don't feel comfortable attacking others for their
> > (admittedly wacky) beliefs. On the other hand, having those beliefs
> > means they believe in other things, like WMDs in Iraq, homeopathy, and
> > Sarah Palin. It's a tough call.
>
> > Kirk
>
> Do you know folks who are into homeopathy who are also believers in
> Sarah Palin and WWDs in Iraq? Most of the folks I know who are
> Republicans are not likely to use homeopathy at all.
>
> Not saying it's not possible - just that those I know would not use
> "alternative" medicine.
>
> Sherry in Vermont
I'm starting to wonder if he didn't mean "Homophobia", not Homepathy.
It would make way more sense in the context of this thread (although I
didn't read the article, my initial point was that I know lots of
religous people who are very liberal in their politics)
Scot
Seth Buttock
>
> - Show quoted text -
Scot -
Is your "spellcheck" working? Homeopathy. And again with the missing
period. For a guy critical of people who don't use "spellcheck" you
sure make a lot of mistakes.
Seth Buttock
I know lots of very religous people who loathe the war in Iraq, Sarah
Palin and most "conservative" issues. Depends on which wacky church
they belong to.
Scot
Congratulations on finally getting your period!
volkfolk
Hey Buttboy,
How nice that you've found a hobby. I'm flattered that you seem so
obsessed with me.
Simple things for simple minds I suppose.
Scot
Seth Buttock
Simple Minds is the most redious, overrated band of the 80's. I'm
glad you are flattered. Wait, I thought you didn't care what I think?
volkfolk
Yo, grammar cop. The sentence should read "Simple Minds ARE the most
tedious overrated band of the 80's"
But you already knew that, didn't you?###########
Scot
marcman
Since the subject "Simple Minds" is singular, as in one band,
shouldn't it be IS and not ARE?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there a thread here not too long
with about 200+ replies discussing almost the exact same thing? I'm
not sure it was ever really resolved. English sure is a funny
language . . .
BTW, Scot, it was very nice (and normal) of you to not hit half-butt
over the head with his typo on the word tedious. He would have done it
to you.
Sherry in Vermont
Err... Scot - I'm pretty sure Simple Minds - being a band, a single
entity, would us the singular case. If he meant simple minds as in
plural people, then it would be "are" rather than "is."
Sherry in Vermont
Seth Buttock
Oh, I don't use a "spellcheck" so typos do get through. So Yo,
spelling cop, what's your excuse?
Kirk McElhearn
> Err... Scot - I'm pretty sure Simple Minds - being a band, a single
> entity, would us the singular case. If he meant simple minds as in
> plural people, then it would be "are" rather than "is."
Unless you're British; they'd say "are", as they do for teams and companies.
Kirk
--
Kirk McElhearn
>>> I'm torn between agreeing with him (which I do, strongly) and feeling
>>> that he's going at all this with a bit too much agressivity. While I am
>>> an atheist, I don't feel comfortable attacking others for their
>>> (admittedly wacky) beliefs. On the other hand, having those beliefs
>>> means they believe in other things, like WMDs in Iraq, homeopathy, and
>>> Sarah Palin. It's a tough call.
>>
>>> Kirk
>>
>> Do you know folks who are into homeopathy who are also believers in
>> Sarah Palin and WWDs in Iraq? Most of the folks I know who are
>> Republicans are not likely to use homeopathy at all.
>>
>> Not saying it's not possible - just that those I know would not use
>> "alternative" medicine.
>>
>> Sherry in Vermont
>
> I'm starting to wonder if he didn't mean "Homophobia", not Homepathy.
> It would make way more sense in the context of this thread (although I
> didn't read the article, my initial point was that I know lots of
> religous people who are very liberal in their politics)
No, I meant homepathy; I didn't mean all of them together in the same person...
Kirk McElhearn
>>
>> I'm torn between agreeing with him (which I do, strongly) and feeling
>> that he's going at all this with a bit too much agressivity. While I am
>> an atheist, I don't feel comfortable attacking others for their
>> (admittedly wacky) beliefs. On the other hand, having those beliefs
>> means they believe in other things, like WMDs in Iraq, homeopathy, and
>> Sarah Palin. It's a tough call.
>>
> That's a pretty whacky belief system you have yourself that says
> belief in God = belief in all the things you list. You certainly have
> your own fantasy belief system going here.
"...other things, like..." I didn't say all at the same time.
marcman
Do you use a "read" check? Read what he wrote again. Your frothing is
getting in the way of your eyesight.
volkfolk
A band is a group, not a single entity.
The Grateful Dead ARE my favorite group. Jorma Kaukonen IS my favorite
guitarist
YMMV, but that's how I read it.
Scot
volkfolk
I wasn't talking about your spelling, I was talking about your
grammar, which you seem so obsessed with.
Scot
volkfolk
> On 2009-11-30 18:46:41 +0100, volkfolk <volkfo...@verizon.net> said:
>
>
>
> >>> I'm torn between agreeing with him (which I do, strongly) and feeling
> >>> that he's going at all this with a bit too much agressivity. While I am
> >>> an atheist, I don't feel comfortable attacking others for their
> >>> (admittedly wacky) beliefs. On the other hand, having those beliefs
> >>> means they believe in other things, like WMDs in Iraq, homeopathy, and
> >>> Sarah Palin. It's a tough call.
>
> >>> Kirk
>
> >> Do you know folks who are into homeopathy who are also believers in
> >> Sarah Palin and WWDs in Iraq? Most of the folks I know who are
> >> Republicans are not likely to use homeopathy at all.
>
> >> Not saying it's not possible - just that those I know would not use
> >> "alternative" medicine.
>
> >> Sherry in Vermont
>
> > I'm starting to wonder if he didn't mean "Homophobia", not Homepathy.
> > It would make way more sense in the context of this thread (although I
> > didn't read the article, my initial point was that I know lots of
> > religous people who are very liberal in their politics)
>
> No, I meant homepathy; I didn't mean all of them together in the same person...
It just seems like an out of context point, but that's just me.
Homophobia on the other hand, that would seem to be in context with
the other two points given the other two issues you brought up.
Not a flame, just an observation
Scot
Seth Buttock
Why are you so obsessed with my grammar?
Seth Buttock
>
> - Show quoted text -
Please Marc, you'll have to continue on your own, I don't have time
for you.
marcman
I have to disagree. A band is a single entity.
> The Grateful Dead ARE my favorite group. Jorma Kaukonen IS my favorite
> guitarist
>
Rush IS my favorite group. (They're not, actually I hate Rush, just an
example.)
Mickey and Bill ARE my favorite drummers.
> YMMV,
I ain't tryin' to mess with ya, but I don't think this is a YMMV
situation. There's probably a rule of English for this, I'm curious
what it is.
> but that's how I read it.
>
> Scot- Hide quoted text -
>
volkfolk
I just did a Google search and the bottomline is whether or not you
consider a music group to be a singular entity or a "group" of
individuals (I chose to think of the a group as a plural, since a
group is "They", not a he or she)
Hence I use "are" to describe a group since a group would be "They".
"They is...... " would be bad grammar, "They are...." would be correct
grammar
Scot
Seth Buttock
Period? Hard to say because this is such a poorly constructed
sentence pretending to be a paragraph.
> Hence I use "are" to describe a group since a group would be "They".
> "They is...... " would be bad grammar, "They are...." would be correct
> grammar
>
> Scot
Hence? Hence? Way over your head here bro.
volkfolk
Why are you obsessed with me?
Scot
Seth Buttock
Why do you need to feel like I'm obsessed with you? Is that how you
deal with criticism? That's really kind of sad.
volkfolk
Seth Buttock
Is this a cry for help?
Lfh
> > > > Err... Scot - I'm pretty sure Simple Minds - being a band, a single
> > > > entity, would us the singular case. If he meant simple minds as in
> > > > plural people, then it would be "are" rather than "is."
>
> > > > Sherry in Vermont
>
> > > A band is a group, not a single entity.
>
> > I have to disagree. A band is a single entity.
>
> > > The Grateful Dead ARE my favorite group. Jorma Kaukonen IS my favorite
> > > guitarist
>
> > Rush IS my favorite group. (They're not, actually I hate Rush, just an
> > example.)
>
> > Mickey and Bill ARE my favorite drummers.
>
> > > YMMV,
>
> > I ain't tryin' to mess with ya, but I don't think this is a YMMV
> > situation. There's probably a rule of English for this, I'm curious
> > what it is.
>
> I just did a Google search and the bottomline is whether or not you
> consider a music group to be a singular entity or a "group" of
> individuals (I chose to think of the a group as a plural, since a
> group is "They", not a he or she)
>
> Hence I use "are" to describe a group since a group would be "They".
> "They is...... " would be bad grammar, "They are...." would be correct
> grammar
Actually, a group is singular, as it's an it, not a they. The group
are coming over wouldn't be correct. But for some reason, the usage of
a plural is common when the name of the group is a plural, even though
it's actually a singular entity.
Fred
Kirk McElhearn
>>> I ain't tryin' to mess with ya, but I don't think this is a YMMV
>>> situation. There's probably a rule of English for this, I'm curious
>>> what it is.
>>
>> I just did a Google search and the bottomline is whether or not you
>> consider a music group to be a singular entity or a "group" of
>> individuals (I chose to think of the a group as a plural, since a
>> group is "They", not a he or she)
>>
>> Hence I use "are" to describe a group since a group would be "They".
>> "They is...... " would be bad grammar, "They are...." would be correct
>> grammar
>
> Actually, a group is singular, as it's an it, not a they. The group
> are coming over wouldn't be correct. But for some reason, the usage of
> a plural is common when the name of the group is a plural, even though
> it's actually a singular entity.
As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, the Brits use the "group name"
are construction: Arsenal are; Lloyds Bank are... In US English, that's
incorrect. (I'm a writer; I'm confronted with this stuff regularly.)
However, there is an execption for _plural_ groups, which often get
"are": Talking Heads are great; The Rolling Stores are exciting, etc.
volkfolk
No, curiousity
Scot
Brad Greer
wrote:
>On 2009-11-30 17:55:33 +0100, Brad Greer <jjh1...@yahoo.com> said:
>
>>>
>>> I'm torn between agreeing with him (which I do, strongly) and feeling
>>> that he's going at all this with a bit too much agressivity. While I am
>>> an atheist, I don't feel comfortable attacking others for their
>>> (admittedly wacky) beliefs. On the other hand, having those beliefs
>>> means they believe in other things, like WMDs in Iraq, homeopathy, and
>>> Sarah Palin. It's a tough call.
>>>
>> That's a pretty whacky belief system you have yourself that says
>> belief in God = belief in all the things you list. You certainly have
>> your own fantasy belief system going here.
>
>"...other things, like..." I didn't say all at the same time.
>
Well, then, I really don't understand your point. I think the vast
majority of people hold some irrational (at least to others) thoughts
whether they believe in god or not.
Seth Buttock
> No, curiousity
>
> Scot
Period. Again. Ok buddy, last word are all yours since I know how
important it are for your obsession. It's been fun yanking your chain
but I don't want to make you mad anymore. Until next time!:)