response 126 of 209:

Aug 6 22:56 UTC 2003

Heh, I have a friend whose family has a cottage up in Greenville. 

response 128 of 209:

Aug 6 23:18 UTC 2003

See 124.  People can believe pretty much whatever they want, cry out for
help to whomever they want, and as long as they're not bothering me I could
care less.  To a certain extent, even if they are bothering me I'll ignore
them anyway.  However, I am trained as a scientist and when people 
misinterpret data on purpose it rubs me the wrong way.  When they start
citing made-up statistics without bothering to check veracity for the
purpose of inflicting their arbitrary values and morals on my uterus,
all of which is justified because of their "faith", then I have a problem
with that.  

response 130 of 209:

Aug 6 23:37 UTC 2003

Re #118:  There is ample evidence to prove the existence of atoms, and
just off the top of my head I'll recount how science arrived at that
conclusion and held to it.  (The Greeks initiated the concept, but
did not have the scientific method to actually test theories.)

In the nineteenth century, researchers noted that substances could
either be made from, or broken down to, consistent ratios of other
substances.  This supported (but did not prove) the theory that
substances were made of discrete and identical atoms which could
be combined in different ways.  Nothing in chemistry ever gave reason
to challenge this idea, once some kinks were worked out.

In the 20th century, researchers found an odd phenomenon called
radioactivity.  One researcher working with alpha particles found
that most of them went through a gold foil with small deflections
in their paths, but occasionally one would bounce almost straight
back at the source.  This was described with words something like
"it was like firing a cannon ball at a piece of tissue paper and
having it bounce back and hit you."  From this it was concluded
that atoms not only existed, but their positive charge was concentrated
in a very small (and heavy) region.

Since then we've done huge amounts of resarch work, all of which
confirms the existence of atoms as previously understood and none
of which seriously questions it (experimental error aside).  The
new knowledge fiddles at the edges; none of it shakes the center.

And, Bruce, you *should* have known this, because it's been at the
core of introductory science texts since before you and I went to
school.  It is simple, it is clear, it is unequivocal.  If you have
not even bothered to acquaint yourself with the evidence which led
to the conclusion that atoms exist as science understands them, you
have no legitimate right to an opposing opinion on the subject.

Yet when asked to mind your own business on ANOTHER subject where
you appear equally ignorant, you say "nope, I cannot.  Anynore than
I could stand by and watch a 12 year old raped and murdered in a
parking lot..." with the implication that you'd feel entitled to use
deadly force to enforce your unexamined dogma on other people.

Need you wonder why I think you're a threat to liberty and tolerance?

response 134 of 209:

Aug 7 01:43 UTC 2003

russ, can you be any more dense?  However I notice you are not the only one.
Sigh!

Certainly I believe and accept that atoms exist.  Protons, electrons, mouns,
and every other sub atomic particle.

I also believe in God.

There is just as much visual evidence for each.

response 136 of 209:

Aug 7 04:51 UTC 2003

re #133:  There are a couple kinds of magic that have been believed in.  One
draws on some power inate to the magic user.  This is basically the kind of
magic we saw on "Bewitched".  The official doctrine of the old time Catholic
Church was completely in agreement with modern science on that one - there
ain't no such thing.

Another form of magic works by calling on supernatural beings to act on your
behalf.  The Christian Church used to believe in this in a big way (and still
believes in it in somewhat smaller ways).  There are two main variations to
this recognized by the Church:  calling on God, or calling on the Devil.

The "calling on God" variation is basically praying for a miracle.  Catholic
priests used to do lots of this stuff - blessing crops, finding lost
objects, healing the sick - all by invoking God.  Astute observors noticed that
they had simply taken up all the roles previously occupied by pre-christian
witches.  Various reformers wanted excise all this hocus-pocus form the
Church.  That's a core part of where Protestantism comes from.  It's all been
trimmed back a bit in the modern Catholic Church as well.

Any supposed magic conducted by any means other than conventional prayer was
considered to be the other kind:  calling on the Devil.  Didn't much matter
if people claimed they had never made a pact with Satan - if they appeared to
do magic and weren't clergy, then they were assumed to have a pact with Satan,
any other kind of magic being officially impossible.

So, no, Jesus wasn't a witch.  If he'd made a pact with Satan to allow him
to walk on water, then he'd be a witch.  I'm not sure whether he actually
is supposed to have had inate power of his own (being an aspect of God and
thus an exception to the rule that humans can't do magic) or whether it was
just God doing things for him in recognition of his faith.  I think the
latter.

Of course, Harry Potter doesn't appear to call upon the power of Satan
either.  The book seems to be assuming that magic power is innate in certain
individuals.  The claim that the book is Satanic rests on the old theory that
no humans can have such power, so, somewhere in the chapter breaks, Harry
must have slipped off and sold his soul to Satan in exchange for power.

Of course, this logic has some cogs loose.  You could equally well argue that
Star Trek is Satanic because faster than light travel is impossible, so
Captain Kirk must have sold his soul to Satan.  I guess some people have
trouble with the concept of fantasy.

response 138 of 209:

Aug 7 14:07 UTC 2003

Can someone explain to me the evils of "The Coneheads"?  I'm still stuck on
that . . .

response 140 of 209:

Aug 7 16:28 UTC 2003

Oh man.  You're joking, right?

response 142 of 209:

Aug 7 21:21 UTC 2003

It should be noted, too, that (according to other news reports) the 
book-burners also fried up some Bibles that were not of the godly King 
James version.

response 144 of 209:

Aug 7 22:34 UTC 2003

Bruce, can YOU be any more dense?  There is a huge amount of
reproducible evidence for atoms; every one of the essential
experiments gets re-verified millions of times a day, in the
world's chemical plants and oil refineries (even ignoring
chemistry labs).

In contrast, there is NO way to reproduce the revelations on
which you base your beliefs about abortion.  None.  If they
could be reproduced and verified, there wouldn't be more than
one religion worldwide, just as there is one science worldwide.

Your claim that everything not visible is equivalent is absurd.
You can't see microbes with your eyeballs either.  Does that mean
that incense and voodoo chants are equivalent to antibiotics when
trying to get rid of them?  Some people believe that.  They're WRONG.

What really gets me about you, Bruce, is that you put more outward
credence into the unsupported dogma fed you by some clergyman than
you do in the verifiable evidence of the world.  It's obvious that
you have more emotional energy invested in it.  If you actually
gave weight to beliefs according to the certainty with which you
can verify them, dieties would rank somewhere below theories of
Jimmy Hoffa's resting place.

response 146 of 209:

Aug 7 23:08 UTC 2003

russ, you have absolutely no idea what I believe or why I believe it.  And
as I have said before, my position on abortion is not religious, but
humanitarian.
, and to some extent constitutional.

As far as proofs of God verses atoms, while I see the interactions of atoms
every day, I also believe I see the interactions of God every day.

Believing in science does not equate a disbelief in God.  Just because you
choose to disbelieve, to think you can make me.

response 148 of 209:

Aug 8 05:56 UTC 2003

re: 135- Yeah. Sort of. Wanna come do my upteen loads of laundry so I can
sit in a nice, hot, wet bath instead? <eg>