ParanoiA

I would say that if you just sold snake oil, it doesn't matter what you believe. If you're selling snake oil claiming it will do x, y and z, then it must do x, y and z or else it's fraud.

Well I don't mean to be pedantic, but isn't "there will never be enough evidence to tell" a faith based statement? I'm thinking, "I don't know, as long as there is not enough evidence to tell".

Is there not a third state? Belief = No (Atheism) Belief = Yes (Theism) Belief = I don't know (??) If "belief = I don't know", then even though I have declared no choice due to lack of sufficient information to determine belief, I still, technically do not believe in god. However, that is not faith based. In fact, it's complete absence of faith either way. So what am I?

Oh man, when I was kid, candy was a popular trick. I went to church several Sundays, and they just passed it out on the bus all the way to church and then all the way back home. I didn't give a crap about church, I just wanted the candy. But after a few times that wasn't enough to keep me going either. So boring... When the church bus comes by my house I tell them to keep going and leave my kids alone. I usually have that distrusting-farmer-with-a-shotgun look on my face when I do it. It took years of philosophical and spiritual pondering before I made this decision.

And then Rush Limbaugh will blame PETA and liberalism for driving up the cost of "natural" meat. It all just sounds like the grind of transition. It will find its place in the market. Perhaps it's best efforts should be focused on the health factor. With so many fat ass americans bobbling around, any meat that provides a healthier meal without sacrificing taste would be embraced. You know how us americans are, we can't afford to be healthy unless it "tastes good". And the only crap we like is fat, sugar and salt. Oh, and lots and lots of processed flour.

The only potential issue I see with lack of respect for other's beliefs is the idea that we must argue with them and constantly berate their beliefs. I don't believe that's respectful at all. Seems to me you should accept other's beliefs as long as they are keeping it to themselves. I really don't care to defend Gravity or Round Earth with every idiot that doesn't believe it. I didn't ask for it. However, if I'm perpetuating my belief onto others, or if that belief is impacting decision making and behavior that creates some kind of conflict, then I don't see any problem with taking me to task about my beliefs. What I generally see, is anti-religious folks (like myself) charging after religious folk for really no better reason than their personal crusade. That's ever bit as despicable as the religios that knock on my door and tempt my kids on the church bus with candy.

How do you know these conditions can only be met with a living animal? The technology to do this isn't invented yet, so aren't these kinds of details a little premature? Also, what if, consequently, fat was created in such a way that introduced brand new textures for dishes - better textures, more flexible? Maybe marblized fat would be inferior to what can be created with this process.

Yeah I hate to derail the thread as well, but can someone tell me what that bit about the lightning and the mud puddle is supposed to be about? Also, I want to test my skills at creating ID arguments...tell me how I do here: Ah, but Darwin's work was called "Origin of Species". Species are living things - thus origin of life. What is lacking is the divinity required for life. You can sift through God's cabinets and identify some of his ingredients, but you can't cook in his kitchen. Well? Could I be an IDer? I think with a little work... Oh yeah, I need to remember to throw in some drivel about being brave enough to question the scientific establishment.

Their arguments appear to depend on evolution. If it wasn't for the theory of evolution, they wouldn't have a backboard to argue with. I would like to hear a creationist argument that doesn't refer to the theory of evolution at all. From every commercial I've seen, and the little free preview on youtube, it's the same old contrarian song and dance. "We're right because they're wrong, and they're wrong because they don't know everything there is to know about everything." Yeah I'm with you Lance, I'll watch an episode of BSG instead.

What are we going to do with all of the animals? We won't be raising and slaughtering them anymore, so I suppose they'll have to compete with the rest of the wildlife we've marginalized. Will hunting still be relevant? And what excuse will we use to defend the second amendment when hunting becomes "unnecessary"? I love the idea of growing meat - advancing our techniques for survival. But, like Severian, I worry about the fallout. Liberty is already on every politician's hit list in some form or another and I can easily see our liberties further eroded by the same mentallity that drove the Pit Bull thread. "Why do you need to hunt?" "Why is that form of food necessary when this food is so much better?" And on and on...

Yeah, if this were being considered in America, probably right around the corner, I'd have to be strongly against it. Although it would solve one of my problems indirectly...my wife's addiction to Ghost Hunters and etc. Maybe I would get the TV back.

Oh my, that's priceless.

First of all, did you think I was responding to you in some way? I wasn't. Second of all, my point stands on its own. I haven't closed my ears at all, in fact, my gripe is about those that DO because they hate GWB more than they care about real life events in Iraq. Nothing earth shattering there.

I've got 20 bucks that says swansont doesn't read my posts.

That would be sweet. But I'm pretty sure they'd be "expelled" from the museum.

I would definitely stop, so I could show my kids what weirdos really look like.

Ha, yeah, no Fonzie terminology intended. But yeah, I like my apples refrigerated. Something about the cool sweetness that really hits the spot on a summer day. I've also heard apples are good for your teeth, so that's a plus. As far as sweetness, I guess I'm a little shallow as I've not noticed the shades of difference. I've made a note to self on this matter.

Crunch. Sweetness. Juiciness. Coolness. That's what makes a good apple to me.

Not necessarily. What if the context was early 19th century America, somewhere down South and an anti-slavery, anti-racism type group was protecting their children from the Southern influence of rationalizing the need for slavery and tenuous ideas of black inferiority? It's always going to look like a bad thing to the bulk of society when a group practices in defiance of that society. Add kids and "weird" cultural ideas and voila! - instant bad guys. I don't think girls having kids at that young age is necessarily abuse. As has been mentioned, this is normal for many cultures past and some present. I wouldn't say that societal norms alone frame the context for "wrongness" here, but in a society where that's considered normal behavior by all, I don't see how it therefore abuses them either. Personally, I find the whole thing rather sick. How could you touch such young girls and not be repulsed with yourself or question what you're doing? And who wants a woman that walks and talks like a programmed replicant? They all look the same, dress the same, talk the same - even down to the freaking hairdo. Creepy. Then to erase identity between biological families? Yeah, I'm glad there are groups out there trying to bust these things up.

Well I certainly didn't suggest he's a racist because of criticism of China. I also have a big issue with their human rights violations. That's what makes Norman's antics so disappointing - we're already primed for persuasion. I'm going to call it how I see it. He exercises a militant agenda against China and can't type enough words together to explain why. He's spent more time calling everyone stupid than he has anything else. This is what haters do. He's playing the role so I don't see how anyone should be surprised by accusations like that. If I suggested we should boycott the NAACP and gave examples of the militant things I've done to that end, and called everyone stupid that asked me about it and I failed to respond to ANY question over and over again... I would be suspected of a racist agenda. Is that accurate? Maybe not, but I am playing the role aren't I?

I truly believe the name George Bush incites a stronger charge of emotion than the Iraq war. Hatred and opposition to Bush trumps Iraqi lives. We can't talk honestly about Iraq and how to fix the mess we were drug into until the baggage is dropped, or the names of the leaders have changed. Until then, politics and teenage angst will undermine the discussion.

Well, in my experience racists have generally been intransigent haters that do not possess the skills to articulate an intelligent reason for it. Norman has spouted his dislike, and yet cannot seem to articulate ANY reason for it, let alone an intelligent one. At this point, stabbing rhetoric may be the only way to coax an argument out of him - besides one liners hypocritically calling everyone in here stupid while he complains about the substance of the thread. He's irrational and overly emotionally invested to the point he can't even seize the repeated opportunity to convince a room full of people to agree.

Well, wait a minute though. "Biofuels" is a broad category that does NOT require food items to be fuel. So, I would consider that refinement before you trash Biofuels in general.

Yeah, I was going to suggest asking more than 5 dentists but...

Oh yeah! Well poopy washes off but stupid is forever. Wait a minute...uh.. Thank us all by answering iNow's questions. They are very fundamental and Mr Skeptic is destroying your position.