Rid

There is a difference between Atheism and prejudice. Atheism, as you pointed out, "is commonly defined as the positive belief that deities do not exist, or as the deliberate rejection of theism." That has nothing to do with religion being wrong. Saying religion is "wrong" is prejudice. Not believing that God exists is Atheism. You pointed that one out yourself.So, by your own admission of the definition of Atheism, I'm not lacking any tolerance at all, except towards prejudice.Sorry for my vagueness with the definition of racism.

I'll admit, that I did overreact. I won't take back what I said, however, as prejudice is prejudice, and believe organized religion is wrong is prejudice towards organized religion, just as believing that being a different skin colour is wrong is racism.

I did no name calling. I was highly insulted by what you said, and I stand by what I said. Whether what you say is true or not, and I doubt it to be so, due to your viewpoint, your opinions are similar to those of a racist towards someone of a different skin colour. A racist is entitled to their opinion, does that make them any less a racist? You are entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't make you any less prejudiced towards religion.

I am VERY insulted by your obvious ignorance. You are a person who hates religion merely for the sake of hating it. I'm sorry, but you are no better than a racist. A single person may have beliefs, but when many people share those beliefs, it becomes religion, and when this religion creates institutions of worship and learning, it becomes organized. Your ignorant and prejudiced idea that organized religion is merely a control tool is unfounded. Many people share in the beliefs that Christianity has. Certain groups disagree on certain parts, and that is why there are different sects of Christianity. It is the same with Judaism and Islam. Different sects due to slightly different beliefs. I am reform Jewish. I have not finished reading the Torah, and will likely not for some time. Does this make me any less Jewish? No, it does not. My father was born Jewish, and under Reform Judaism, this makes me Jewish. I believe in a great deal of biblical history, though I do not go to synagogue every week. How I follow my religion is up to me, not some ignoramus like you. The dictionary comparison works quite well, as your argument is flawed. What requirement do I have to read the entire Torah to discuss it? I have discussed it, which is where most of my information came about from it. These discussions were with people who had read and finished reading the Torah, so obviously the information I gained was accurate. These bibles to a religion are history and guidelines. The history is the history of one's people. The guidelines are how to live your daily life. More religious people view these guidelines as rules that must be followed. I'm sorry to point this out, but you two have shown classical ignorance towards what religion is, much as a racist shows ignorance towards people of a different skin colour. You may have your beliefs, but unless you have an understanding of what religion is, which you don't, do not insult us.

I'm not saying its easy, I'm saying its doable.

I'm in Canada. I buy concentrated frozen, usually, and mix it myself. Lately I've been buying 100% pure orange juice with pulp. I hate watered down crap.

I would have to disagree with this statement. I would agree that "right and wrong" may appear to be relative, based mainly upon an individual's point of view, but this is like saying that "normal" is relative. The definition of normal is: conforming with or constituting a norm or standard or level or type or social norm; not abnormal; "serve wine at normal room temperature"; "normal diplomatic relations"; "normal working hours"; "normal word order"; "normal curiosity"; "the normal course of events". While my daily actions may be normal in relation to myself, they may not be normal in relation to society, and therefore are not normal. The same goes for right and wrong. While what is right to myself may not be right to society, and therefore is not right. One of the major things that societies world wide have in common is the dislike for crime, such as murder and theft. Certain societies see different things as crimes, but true crime, like theft and murder, seem to be disliked near world wide, and therefore should naturally be considered evil, as our societies do. Something such as the rape of a woman in most societies today is also considered evil, but it was not always so in many places, and in some areas of the world it still is not considered so. So by your logic, since this act does not seem evil to certain societies, it is not evil in that area. A sort of "beauty in the eyes of the beholder" phenomenon. However, just because a small society sees it as normal, does that make it right for them to do it? How do those women feel about it, and do the men of that society truly have a right to force themselves upon a woman? In our society it is deemed morally wrong, again invoking your logic that good and evil are relative. The reason that I would say, however, that your logic is incorrect is by simple fact that societies that view such acts as evil are also very advanced in culture and technology. It would seem that the cultures that unite behind near absolute, slightly relative values of good and evil, the ones where equal rights are extended to all, no matter the race, religion, gender, or age, are the cultures that expand and grow, becoming powerful and desired. Would it not make sense then, that these cultures, now nations, are proof that there is right and wrong?

I like concentrated juice. Its cheaper.

Yes, in some cases. But I've yet to see juice that is 100% fruit juice from a no name brand other than a few store brands. I've also found that no name brand meats tend to be very poor quality, and more water than actual meat.

Even if they can get a computer to fully imitate a human brain, its going to require huge computers to do it properly due to the complexity and the mass amounts of information the brain can store. Don't forget, we don't just store vast amounts of information in our brain, but the ability to reason, which is going to be extremely hard for a computer to correctly imitate.

Maybe not practical at this time, but in an emergency situation, they'd figure out how to destroy the asteroid, whether that meant an advanced nuclear weapon, or a really big magnet.

It usually depends for me. I never have a specific amount of time where I am working. Guess I'd say about 1-2 hours per day is working, though it will be rather more quite soon.

All the good too you where you live. Where I am, and most places I have been, no name is often the last thing on the shelf.I've also read some of the ingredients of no name products... In some cases, I would rather pay the extra couple of bucks.

And having taken an advertising course, I can see how you don't understand the mass advertising either. As an example to help you understand, I'll use the example that was given to me.I can't remember the name, it was a few years back, but a new wine company had gone on to the market, and had nuzzled their way in. For the first few years, they did not do any advertising. The first time they advertised was a simple one page advertisement in a magazine. Their sales made a massive 70% jump within one month.The reason people go buy from big stores such as Walmart, Welworths, and others is because of the money put into advertising. Compare the price of a no name brand product to a well known product that is made almost exactly the same. Huge price difference. The reason for the price difference is mainly in advertising, yet more people are buying the well known product. Why? Because the advertising creates trust in the product. People know how it is illegal to falsely advertise, so they trust advertisements and are quite often willing to pay more for a similar product.There are other things involved in advertising, such as strategic advertising and subliminal messages. The fact that companies advertise is the reason people go to them. Companies do no spend money lightly. When they advertise, they have not just payed for the advertisement to be placed, but they pay to make sure that the advertisement will attract attention. If places like Welworths or Walmart were to stop advertising, you would be surprised at how quickly their sales would fall. After all, how would you know when the next big sale is on, or the next price drop is on, or what's new in the store? People don't want to go to the store to find out what is there, they want the information sent to them, and thus a business that advertises will receive more customers, but must also cover the cost of that advertising in their price.

Bill Gates is a part of that 2% that provides over 50% of the tax dollars of the USA. He also donates millions of dollars to charity every year.Poor people aren't driven poorer by rich people. Poor people quite often drive themselves poor by purchasing things they do not need. As you have pointed out, better quality bread at an Asian baker is cheap, so since it is so cheap, it would make sense for poorer people to purchase bread there, would it not? Yet how many actually do?Just because a store sells things quick doesn't mean that it makes huge profits. Think about this, coming from a person who is just now beginning his own small business: The company needs to pay (in no particular order) investors, cashiers, customer support, accounting, management, lawyers, cleaning crews, overnight stock crews, shipping and handling, taxes, benefits, rent, penalties, water bills, electricity bills, huge phone bills, advertising and more. Don't forget that the employees you see are only a small part of what goes on behind the scenes. Advertising to get your attention will often cost in the hundreds of thousands to just make an attempt at getting your attention for 30 seconds. If you were to see a commercial for Walmart on a single channel ten times in one day, that may very well have cost Walmert as much as $10 million just to get your attention for 5 measly minutes of a day. What you see isn't always what is. How do you know what the profit margin, after all those expenses, really is? Did you know that many oil and gas companies, after all expenses, make only a few percentage points of profit out of their revenues? Compare that to a coffee company, who's product costs you what seems to be very little, while in reality their profit margin is often as high as 3000% after all expenses.

First thing I would like to get out: I am deep in the lower income range. Last year my total earnings were well under ten thousand dollars Canadian. Second thing I would like to point out: I am very, very conservative. Now, here is where you are wrong, and how the right really sees such things. 1. Government welfare is free/Government Welfare takes hours of telephone work and negotiating. No conservative assumes that government welfare is free. We know that you have to go through a process to get there. One of the problems conservatives have with welfare is this process, which is mainly caused by stagnant bureaucracy that eats up money when it should be going to people who actually need it. 2. The users of welfare come to expect everything from the government/The vast majority of welfare recipients are victims trapped by the upper class. I can vouch a difference between low welfare and high welfare here. In Canada, the number of people on welfare has been growing since the 90's. Canada provides a significantly larger sum of money to recipients of welfare than does the USA. The USA, however, has shown either a decrease or relatively stable number of people on welfare in recent years, despite the fact that recipients receive much less money. According to liberal theory, if they receive less money it is harder for them to get out. Yet statistically, less money seems to make it easier to get out. Your statement that the vast majority of welfare recipients are victims trapped by the upper class is also false. When was the last time a poor person gave you a job? Bill Gates is the richest man in the world, and he employs tens of thousands of people. I've never known a single poor person to have even one employee. 3. The users of welfare come to expect everything from the government/The users of welfare expect basic necesities of human life from the government in exchange for thier loyalty and patriotic support of the government. My question to you is: why haven't people been saving money in case they actually do end up on welfare? I put $20 away every pay check for saving for a rainy day, and soon I will be opening an RRSP that will take an additional $20 off each pay check. I'm poor, I live paycheck to paycheck with my g/f, but I don't buy needless things. When I have a bit of spare money, after everything is said and done, I might treat myself, but for the most part, I'm making sure that I will make it through the next month with money to spare. Here in Canada, there are many people on welfare who actually do expect everything from the government, because it is enough to live off of, and they don't need to bother working to make more money so that they can be more comfortable. They are happy with where they are because it is enough. In America, where welfare is much less, if you manage your money with some intelligence you will be fine. There are significantly more opportunities in the USA than there are in Canada, and little to no excuse to need welfare if you have been smart with your money. 4. The users of welfare "leech" the taxpayers of their funds/The users of welfare get the dregs and left overs of the taxpayers funds, the upper class "fat cats" get the vast majority of it. The first statement is, in reality, what many conservatives believe. Taxpayers work hard for their money, even if it doesn't seem like it. Sure, the owner of McDonald's doesn't do anything, but whether or not he does anything, his business, that he had to work at to start up, is now the number one entry level job in North America, and one of the highest demanded items on a resume. Your statement that upper class "fat cats" get the vast majority of taxpayer funds also has no substance or logic. Over 50% of Americas tax dollars come from the top 2% of income earners. If someone is making more money because they worked hard or were lucky, why doesn't he have a right to do as he wishes with that money? There are many non-profit organizations willing to help people less fortunate, especially churches. There are plenty of free classes for job improvement and other self-help, all you have to do is look and ask.

To answer some questions and to get my own opinion/facts in:It was mentioned that Christianity had its own piece of history where it was force converting and slaughtering innocent people. This is true. It is also true that no part of the New Testament condones these acts. The Koran (which I've read), on the other hand, condones violence against non-believers and forced conversions. It condones sex with children and war on infidels. The book itself looks like it was written by someone with multiple personalities, as in some parts it claims that Jews and Christians (making it the ONLY holy book in the world to specifically name another religion) are people of the book, and in other parts it calls them infidels.Near the beginning of the book, it is made quite clear that Islam should be spread by force of arms. It is also quite clear that women are not only second class citizens, but are virtually slaves. I know that women in most religions, such as Judaism and Christianity, have been treated as second class in the past, and the bible condones it, but the bible does not condone the beating or stoning of women. The Koran does.There are specific issues with Muslim faith, such as the extremist parts of the Koran. These parts are the guidelines for Islamofascism. If there weren't something wrong with the religion, then Islamofascism wouldn't be so prominent in the world today, where we have things such as mass media and the internet where people can learn. In the dark ages, the only source of information was the church, and much of the church was corrupt. Today, there is plenty of sources of information, all easily accessible, and no excuse for the ignorance that exists is the extremist end of the Muslim world.

I'm betting a majority of you aren't big in the blogosphere, but you should probably get in and take a look. Democrats on this forum, you will be shocked by how horrible your party's largest supporters are. Left wing blogs are racist towards republicans who are minorities, sexist towards female republicans, are very anti-semitic, and think that the troops are nothing more than psychopathic murderers. Republicans on this forum, you will probably find a lot of kindred spirits on the blogosphere who are rather logical and good natured. Republicans will also being learning about a man named Duncan Hunter if you start checking out places such as Right Wing News. Duncan Hunter is a true conservative candidate, who is actually one of the front runners among the right wing blogosphere, and who has a good chance of winning the presidency if he can get his name recognized. Look him up. The only downside I've seen from him (being a conservative) is his foreign trade policy. Other than that, he is as close to Reagan as you can get.

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ This is a significant development technologically. What could possibly stand up to something this powerful?

While I agree with protecting the Ozone layer due to its obvious good uses, you have to take time to think about Global Warming, because most people simply do not.Fifty years of human pollution is the equivalent of a single volcanic eruption. Eight volcanoes erupt every year. Just thinking about this alone, how do we contribute to global warming when we produce 1/400th of the amount of greenhouse gas that mother nature produces? The second biggest source of greenhouse gas is domestic animals used for food, still going far beyond what humans produce with factories and cars. Should we slaughter all the livestock and become vegans?The comment on the USA not ratifying Kyoto is laughable. Despite the fact that they did not ratify, the USA has so far led the world in decreasing its greenhouse gas output. Canada, which is considered one of the cleanest nations in the world, is near last, with its greenhouse gas emissions rising over the past few years at a fairly dramatic rate.The question is, what is the difference between the USA, which has not ratified, and Canada, which has ratified? Simple. The USA has pushed for clean technologies which help the economy. By helping the economy, it spurred research and development into making cleaner air. Canada, on the other hand, simply placed in a great deal of restrictions on businesses, harming the economy and possible economic solutions for the greenhouse gas problem. Thus, you have the USA succeeding, and Canada, with most other nations which have ratified Kyoto, failing.

Our missiles may currently not be capable of being launched into space, but already ICBMs enter sub-orbit, and it wouldn't be too hard to simply load a nuke onto a larger rocket that is capable of exiting the atmosphere. Always be careful with teachers, they are taught to think inside the box, never outside the box, and so I've had many that won't even consider the simplest alternative that would work.

I'm filled with anticipation for the game. I can't wait. I've played the demo and loved it. I'm a bit disappointed that you can't build walls anymore, but I love the upgrade they made to the ion cannon, so it all works out.I'm all over the tiberium series. I didn't like red alert too much. It was OK, but I'm glad that EA has finally returned to the series that sparked the genre.Welcome back, Commander!

I'm assuming you haven't heard of the website "Right Wing News". Go to http://rightwingnews.com/ The MSM is vastly owned by the liberal left. Fox News is probably the sole exception. Compare the acts of people on Fox compared to those on CNN, and you notice a very large difference. The liberal MSM does not want the conservative side of the story to be heard. They only want their side to be heard. If a balanced media law were enacted, every media station in the USA, including Fox News, would be shut down. There is no such thing as balanced media. There is the liberal media, Fox News, and the blogosphere, which is split into fair Conservative and Wacky liberal, for the most part. There are a few shunned wacko conservative blogs, but they are shunned.

Well, this is my take on it right now, due to some information I've dug up, and some admissions from the US government itself through the Military channel.The biggest conspiracy theory when it comes to hidden governments is the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy", which is rather common among the wacky left. Two simply put statements discount the theory. The first is, "I know for a fact that there is no vast right wing conspiracy, because if there was one, I'd be a part of it." True in my case, I apologize to all the liberals on the forum. The second is, "Conservatives can't even agree on where to meet for coffee, how the heck can they agree on how to run a massive world wide conspiracy?"No matter how big or small, hidden governments have one perpetual problem, and that is human involvement. If it were computers running the show, who have no emotions that would get in the way, I'd say the conspiracy would work. But as is seen with current technology, it is unlikely this would happen.To move on to Area 51...One guy found the "legendary" Area 51 on google maps. He was looking around in the desert where it was rumoured to be, and found a military base, mostly blacked out. I can't remember the website, but I'm sure if you google it you'll find it.On the military channel, one show, can't remember which, did an episode on a secret military testing base, which has become known as Area 51 in common culture. They gave up the area, which confirmed what the guy had found on google maps. It has been relocated several times. All it has ever been used for is the testing of military prototype weaponry. Another show that I was not fortunate enough to see, but my girlfriend did, had a military scientist speak about things from when the base was once located near Roswell, New Mexico. The lights that people saw were tests for spacecraft, according to this scientist. They didn't go very well. It must also be noted that the man was given complete anonymity, so there is no way to confirm his story.As in the first post, it is true enough that it is easy to hide things in the current government. I have a friend who tells me he is ex-military, but when we touched on a certain subject of military training, he refused to continue the conversation. I sensed through his voice (quite difficult, I might add, as I have ADHD and Aspergers), that we should not continue the conversation and that is was very sensitive.There are such things as assassins. For example, when Iraq was building a nuclear reactor, Israel sent many assassins to take out top level scientists. One incident included the assassin being caught in the act by a prostitute. She was hit by an unmarked corvette just before giving a statement to police. Mossad did not give away this information to public access for many years.The point is, from anything I can tell through research, there is no government conspiracy behind the scenes. There is definately such a thing as covert operations, but that isn't truly a conspiracy.

Frankly, I'm doubting these scientists are telling us the truth. They want to test out a new gizmo rather than actually caring about the likelyhood of this thing hitting us. Even if it were going to hit us, and we launched a nuke at it, the smaller pieces would be more likely to burn up in the atmosphere than actually hit, and those that did hit, only 1 in 4 would hit land, and only 1 in 28.5 would hit a city (3.5% of Earth's land is urban area). Volcanic activity on Earth has been much more destructive than any meteors.