rigney

Cuthber pretty well answered your question in post # 6. Generally folks don't deny some ignorance about many things. But to poke fun usually means the person is either scared or knows nothing of the subject..Only wish I had a better aptitude for science.

No! A good logical discussion is fine, But to make fun of anothers beliefs only conveys something less than ignorance.

No one alive today has the profundity of dealing with such a topic. Perhaps in another 10,000 years when science is better qualified?

It's hypocritial to worship something of which you haven't a clue. Theist's, God and Devil worshipers, plus the easily led of all types have made this mistake for millennia. If you need to worship something, why not simply say, "Since to my knowledge the Universe exists, I will worship it." I may be wrong, but my thoughts are that Aboriginie's the world over has always maintained this concept. It's only when "Do Gooders" write, document and demand that theirs is the only way to worship, do we get in trouble. If we actually knew, I think it's the inherent nature of all living things to worship something beyond their comprehention. As humans we top this chain regardless of how, who, or what we believe.

I'll not disagree with you. My aim was only to make a comparison between Billy and Steven, not cut anything in stone. And religions, there are likely as many as there are languages and dialects. Native American had what you might call tribal religion to the extent that at times, it didn't even reach the next camp area. Statistically, as things stand at the moment it may take another ten to ???? thousands of years to iron out the kinks and ignorance of the situation, If then. And people?. When you try isolating them from their beliefs, regardless of what they might be, you'd better have a pretty good arguement they can understand in order to sway them. And since most people aren't gifted with a scientific mind, it isn't going to be easy. And let's keep the few idiots who constantly stir the sh-t by trying to abolish holidays, at a distance, especially "Christmas", Personally I like all the holidays including Kwanza, Yom Kippur and Jug Day, even though I have no idea what the first two mean? I just don't want to see any of them go AWOL.

http://pinterest.com/pin/53339576808270671/Not to disagree with your assessment of human falability, but when looking at the disparity between religious and non-religious people, we have a long way to go in correcting world problems. Good Luck! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations Had to jump back into my latest post since a friend left this link a few minutes ago.. I'm not into spontaneity, flash mobs or anything similar, even when it comes to being impromptu. But I do love Christmas Carols. Hell, After looking through all of these crowds I couldn't find a single terrorist, detractor or anyone averse to caroling. or enjoying a happy day in their lives. " Look, Listen and Enjoy"! http://pinterest.com/pin/53339576808270671/ http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/11/29/christmas-holiday-flash-mob-good-people

Personally, I see my "belief system" in three parts. Faith is an unshakeable belief in something that has nothing but that faith to support it as an explanation. In essence, it's believing with all my heart in something I can't possibly know to be true. Faith can cause you to do things based on a belief that has no basis. People have been known to lose everything because their faith guaranteed them a certain outcome. Some Christian Scientists have lost their lives for no reason because they chose faith over known medical procedure. Hope is believing in something that might be true but acknowledging that it might not. I can hope I'll win the lottery but my knowledge of probability would keep me from rushing out and buying a yacht before the drawing. Trust allows me to accept the explanation that has the most evidence to support it. This is what science means to me, accepting that an ongoing search for the best answer is much better than believing something that others hope or have faith is the Truth and never question. Trust is earned every day by being honed and supported and constantly examined, never being held as sacred and unassailable. So no, I don't think religion and science have the same validity. Religion relies on the flimsiest of beliefs, faith, while science earns my trust every day with constant examination and curiosity.

I'll not refute your answer, but isn't that a bit short for a cognizant thought to anything?

I can't help but believe a religious and cognicent person wouldn't recognise science for what it is. Only an idiot would deny the reality of pasteurization, penicillin, along with the many vaccines and medical miracles science has developed. Not only that, but just think of the mechanical developements from fire and wigwams, on up through the wheel and on to rocket science. Woody had a good philosophy and it would be nice if things worked out that way. Also, we are mortal, what ever that means? But a hundred years from now kids will still be reading amusing fiction written by Mark Twain, called Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn. I'm no taking sides with any religious philosophy, but isn't there several theories in science as too how the universe began?

To say that either religion or science is the only way to think, leaves a person using only half their brain. A scientist such as Steven Hawkins believes that through his knowledge, perseverance, trial and error; there is no secrets of nature that cannot eventually be unlocked by science. A religious person such as Billy Graham, regardless of which faith he espouses, believes that through his faith and belief, he will one day understand the true measure of GOD. Knowing that each of us must eventually die, who has the best shot at immortality? Scientifically, Steven Hawkins has few peers and an undeniable understanding of the cosmos. But is his rationale the ultimate reason as to why there is a universe? On the other hand there’s Billy Graham, a Bible thumping evangelist who for more than six decades has been preaching the gospels . With our knowledge of a far flung universe limited mostly to that small portion in which we live, can it honestly and truthfully be said that Billy Graham in his belief is totally wrong, or is Steven Hawkins in his belief, totally right? http://www.billygraham.org/specialsections/classics/classics_index.asp

To suggest that humans doesn't have a hand in global warming would be rediculous. But I don't believe for a minute JohnB indicated or said that. Scientists digging into earths history have found continuous tectonic upheavel having broken up Pangaea, mountain forming, the beginning of life on up through dinosaurs, to even include us humans have had a hand in climate warming and cooling. But when I think about this microcasm we live on, it's about how different it is from our neighbors. How very lucky and fortunate we are that life somehow found this safe little haven. The shame is, our modern civilizations are not so much acclimated to re-production as they are to production. As long as there is a lump of coal, a barrel of oil or a tree to be axed down as fuel or lumber, productivity will continue. It is said that Al Gore, who "supposedly" set this global warming ship in motion, and who may have also invented the internet???, doesn't know squat about the enviroment except how to quickly use it up. And yep! Housing, food, clothing and green energy will all shortly go sky high in price. Have you looked at the price of a books on "Global Warming"? http://www.universetoday.com/35796/atmosphere-of-the-planets/.

Yes, perhaps we should leave it to more cooler and qualified heads. But disgusting? Other than some very crude remarks, no. But then, I just loved this little statement of yours. Also:

I'll not question your decision to drop from the discussion, but I am offended that you are trying to make me out as the goat of this boondoggle. My initial questions were: Who, when, how and why. That was a week after the murders and no one seemed to know squat about it. Do I think this administration was and is still culp[ible? From top to bottom! But please don't include the gardner and dish washer. But when something sounds like a fart, smells like a fart and the potential perpitrator smiles and walks softly from the room, you can take bets on who blew it. Since I don't know your friend, I'm sorry he feels that way. I've known many a good soldier, but none who wouldn't accept even a wimp when in harms way and threatened.

Regardless of the answers I might give, they would be quickly negated by B.S. deeper than anything FOX can put out. But I'll try with some questions of my own. D H, on 15 November 2012 - 08:06 AM, said: Terrorists did. Obviously. That's obviously not the answer you were looking for, rigney. What you appear to want is for all of us to admit that1. Prior to the attack, the Obama administration repeatedly ignored requests for improved security at the Benghazi consulate. 2.The CIA held prisoners at that nearby CIA annex. 3.The attack was a carefully planned Al Qaeda operation. 4.The attack was a near-continuous, seven hour long fire fight. 5.The administration watched the attack live from the White House situation room. 6.The CIA and DoD were told from the highest levels to stand down during the attack. 7.The administration knew from the onset that this was an Al Qaeda attack. 8.The administration blatantly lied about the nature of the attack for weeks after the attack. Except for #3 (which we don't know yet), these are all lies put out by Fox News.

Please tell me then, what is this enigmatic source of your unbiases and truthful information? I only listen to the rediculous lies and bull crap republicans keep spouting.

Those claims haven't been debunked at all, just glossed over. Did our government not know the consulate had been compromised on two different occasions? Wasn't the meager protection they had, taken away from them? And knowing this, why were drones not used full time for their protection? Tell me, from where does all of this privileged information you posess come, and of which I am definitely not privy? Certainly not from the right.

What specifically did they do? What precisely makes you think this (what information or evidence led you to that conclusion)?

Whether this thread goes any farther rests strictly the perogative of those involved. But I see you're still carry that mouse around in your pocket John boy. The "WE" thing you keep referring to reminds me of someone afraid of the dark or unable to sleep alone. As for your questions? Since you seem to have all of the right answers, you certainly don't need my dull input.

Tunnel vision my a--. The above is also lines of B.S. we will likely hear until this thing blows over. Tell me, If the Government, FBI, CIA and our military all knew the damned place couldn't be defended and had been probed with lesser attacked on two different occasions, why in hell were those thirty or forty counsulet people left in there? Knowing this, why had the place been left open at all? The answer might be; selling sno cones to the Eskimos. Making a case for stupidity is just plain stupid. I keep hearing lame assed poormouth excuses justifying those murders to the point where they gag me, but I just ain't buying it no more than those congressional panels doing the investigating. And your friend? Thank him for his service, but his opinions are no more than those of us poor slobs still here in the dark.

Don't poke fun. And while magic doesn't do it, neither does, 'well; let's see what happens after the fact". This thing had been spelled out for months, yet no action had been taken to increase protection for this counselet. Fact is, what little protection had been there was reduced to nothing. But why? Doesn't that make you want to ask questions? Being sure of this weakness, terrorist waited for an oppurtune moment to pounce on 9/11. I have no idea if you've ever been in the military, but things like this just don't happen per chance to any of the branchs. And in a case such as this, "Vigilance" is the only word.

Refresh me! Your questioning seems to have been going on as long as this post. Give me a post # and I'll do my best to give you an answer. But before it ever became entangled, action should have been take, not wallowed around like a gum drop. And Yes! This happens quite frequently on the forum. But why? Each of us rationalize an issue as we see it, hopefully for nothing more or less. My honest opinion? Someone or somebodies are responsible for this debachle in Benghazi.

What questions? I have no idea what you're talking about.

Ranting about you being English? Perish the thought! Some of my best friends, including the most removed of my relatives are, or were English. Wish I had known Churchill a bit better. I believe he and I smoked the same brand of cigars at one time.

I don't quite relate to the smart and objective part of your comment Phi but I get a lot of heat for my own views and precption on many issues. My prowess is no where near the caliber of intellect I witness on the forum. But to refer to someone as dense, stupid, lame or loony for their interpretation of a matter, only limits my respect for them to that of being an educated idiot. At the same time it intensifies my resolve to treat them as such. Many if not most of my statements are unrehersed when made and come primarily from what I have either read or heard pertaining to a subject. Only when I get pissed at crap someone puts out as gospal, expecting me to believe, do I resort to unflattering remarks. As for the navigator? Other than this post I've not had the pleasure But he is very articulate and quite knowledgeable of the unrelenting depths of how rhetoric works. I'm very glad he's around to help keep the wolves away. Vague allegation!? You saw exactly what I did. And by the way John, everything you write is something of an accusation. Can I validate their supposed finding? No way! But yes, I wonder why the following video was removed. I also wonder at your bitterness, being such an upright and dignified English gentleman as you are? But then, chances are, you don't even have a dog in this fight.

I see, and you are looking at irrefutabvle conversational evidence such as this, to trip up a conservative long enough to call them a loony? And then, I suppose this being put out by some right wing conservative looney nuts, make it untrue? http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/10/24/they-knew-they-lied-p-e-r-i-o-d-irrefutable-evidence-that-president-obama-and-hillary-clinton-lied/