Someone should be able to be a successful actor, musician, etc, without needing to compromise their privacy. There's no reason why a complete lack of privacy needs to be part of the job description, since this has nothing to do with their work, and some of them are serious and passionate about their profession. For politicians it's different, because their character directly impacts their work. Actors' personal lives are different though, and the fascination with them is unwarranted nosiness that merely reflects the person's own lack of useful interests. It's truly lamentable that we should think a movie star's trip to the supermarket is worth reading about, much less photographing. Just think, some of these people have to put on sunglasses just to go to get their mail. It's ridiculous. Not only is it a gross invasion of privacy, it's also pathetic that people have nothing more interesting (much less important) to learn or think about.

Not every living thing is the same - you'd probably be okay with squashing a bug, for example, but you could be uncomfortable watching a kitten get abused. This is because each species' capacity to suffer is different. This isn't speculative, it's based on science, and in particular knowledge of the animal's nervous system. Cows, pigs, and chickens raised for meat generally suffer immensely (given that most are raised on factory farms), whether it be from the slaughter itself, the conditions they're raised in (which are often disgusting and/or painful), or the fear and discomfort they're able to experience. You can't honestly say that you think a cow is of the same intelligence and capacity to suffer as a plant, can you? Are you aware that plants don't even really have nervous systems? Plant and animal cells are remarkably different, as I'm sure you're aware of from any basic biology class. There can't be any serious position, supported by evidence, that it's just as immoral to kill a plant as it is to kill an animal. Otherwise, even the analogy presented before between the squashed bug and abused kitten isn't strong enough - it'd be more like saying that you think it's just as bad to pluck a piece of grass from the ground as it is to stick a knife in a dog. You must realize that's patently absurd.

There are other faux-meat products besides plain tofu (which, by the way, can be prepared different ways). There are soy hot dogs, various preparation of chicken (soy chicken nuggets, strips, etc), soy taco, veggie burgers, and so on. A lot of it is really good, both the authentic-tasting and the more original flavors (that is, some fake meats don't taste like meat, but they don't taste bad either). You just have to find the right product. Boca and Morning Star both make pretty yummy products, though I guess everyone's taste preferences are different. Some restaurants (like Chili's) even offer veggie burgers - I've even gotten them at steak houses. Fuddrucker's makes great ones.

Speaking from experience, it can be really difficult to be the only vegetarian in the house - it's not impossible though. Try talking to your mom about it and explaining why you feel so strongly about it. Even if she doesn't completely agree, she might start respecting your position enough to relent and make things easier for you. You could also try just cutting down on your meat-eating (have Meatless Mondays, or alternating days or something). Best case scenario, your mom realizes that it's not as inconvenient as she expected. Worst case scenario, at least you're minimizing your meat intake, so it's better than nothing. Good luck! :)

"They haven't a scrap of true evidence yet they call us blind!" The National Academy of Sciences says otherwise, as does every reputable scientific organization in the world. I have to assume that you haven't read any of the plethora of books about evolution, nor studied the findings of paleontologists, microbiologists, etc. The fact that you have to get a new flu shot every year is evidence that evolution occurs - because the virus has evolved. (Viruses have shorter life spans, so it takes less time for significant evolutionary change to emerge in them.) Another great example of evolution in action is ring species. There's also the fact that every fossil is found in accordance with geography and chronological events (that is, they're all in the fossil record when and where we'd expect them to be). Add in the study of genetics, and you've got yourself an incredible array of evidence.

Recommended Reading (concise list): The Greatest Show on Earth, Richard Dawkins; What Evolution Is, Ernest Mayr; The Ancestor's Tale, Richard Dawkins; Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Daniel Dennett; Why Darwin Matters, Michael Shermer; Science, Evolution, and Creationism, National Academy of Sciences (free and legal pdf is here - http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11876) )

Are you familiar with the book "The Grand Design" by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow? I admit I haven't gotten to it yet, but I understand that it addresses such questions. I assume you're talking about the order of the universe though, not the anthropic principle (which states that conditions on a planet/in a universe have to be very specific in order for life to exist). Incidentally, Richard Dawkins does a great job providing examples of order coming out of chaos in his book "The Blind Watchmaker." For instance, he points out that stones along a beach look deliberately placed (designed) there, but a naturalistic explanation is available for why large rocks tend to be with large rocks, and pebbles with other pebbles - that has to do with the effect of gravity/force on objects of different size and weight. This is a relatively simple example, but I know Hawking dives deeper into the issue - I believe Asimov discussed it at some point as well. The cosmologist Lawrence Krauss also gave a great talk called "A Universe From Nothing", which is available on youtube. It's extremely witty and informative, and well worth the hour or so to watch it.

If you're referring to the anthropic principle however (eg, if the planet was a bit closer or farther from the sun, life couldn't exist or would be vastly different), this is often misinterpreted to be an argument for intelligent design, when it's really the opposite. It's absurdly simple, really - it comes down to the fact that if the Earth WASN'T that particular way, we wouldn't be here to discuss it. There are plenty of worlds without life, but to suggest that it's beyond reason to expect any worlds to have the particulars necessary for life (be in the "goldilocks zone", as it's often described) is to ignore the law of large numbers. The sheer amount of worlds there are provides ample possibility for life-friendly worlds to exist. If you're interested in the subject, I believe there's a section in "The God Delusion" (also by Dawkins) devoted to it.

It's inaccurate to state that humans are made of "energy" - yes, we have energy, but we get it from food. This raises the question - do/would ghosts need to eat in order to maintain their existence (in other words, stay "alive")? Otherwise they'd use up the energy they already have, just as living humans do. Do you also think other creatures (non-human animals and plants) have souls and turn into ghosts, since every living thing has to have energy in some way or another? Also, while energy cannot technically be 'destroyed,' you're also misconstruing the already-mentioned dilemma of energy being able to be used up. In other words, we have to continue to eat to get our energy replenished.

We're also, of course, still faced with the problem of where ghosts go - if all the beings to ever live still inhabit the earth as energy, the earth would be crammed full of these things.

Moreover, there's no verifiable evidence to suggest that ghosts exist, or evidence to support the notion that consciousness (which is an emergent property of the brain) can be maintained and its personality preserved in the absence of the physical presence of the brain.

"if people can believe in angels and in god,ghosts shouldn't be too hard to believe in." I see your point, but I would say that people shouldn't believe in ANY of those things. It's all myth and superstition. A great book I'd recommend about it is "The Demon-Haunted World: Science As A Candle In The Dark." The brilliant scientist and critical thinker Carl Sagan eloquently explains the perseverance of paranormal beliefs through history, and why the case for it is much less logical than we would intuitively believe.

All right, here's a better analogy. We don't offer alcohol to our children with the justification that they need to drink, and also need to develop good judgment concerning which substances to drink and in what quantity. Children are more susceptible than adults to bad habits and bad reasoning, so as a general rule they shouldn't be entrusted with decisions concerning their own well-being. As adults, however, they're more likely to understand the health problems associated with a poor diet, so they can better control their impulses. I'm talking about brain science here - and how children's and adolescent's brains are simply better wired for immaturity and impulsiveness than are the brains of adults.

Being able to visually represent material is extremely important in learning and understanding. Also, lots of presentations require you to have pictures in them, especially in slideshows. Even statistical graphs or tables are generally presented as image files on websites, and it's absurd to suggest that those aren't important enough to warrant ensuring students have access to them. This isn't even taking into consideration subjects such as art. Think about it, students have access to a virtual museum through the internet, and they're being denied that invaluable resource out of a fear of a few kids happening across a dirty picture. Can you imagine if they blocked all text out because of a caution towards kids reading dirty articles? Furthermore, I'm fairly confident that sites like Google have a way to filter our adult content, even if the school's own private internet/technology department is too incompetent for them to be able to figure out how to filter it themselves. Frankly, this is pathetic.

You could say the same about unicorns. The burden of proof falls on the believers. You might find this piece by Carl Sagan to be of interest:

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm

Yes. America is not the center of the world, even if plenty of people speak English. We should try to meet them halfway. Additionally, learning another language is enormously beneficial - it improves your linguistic skills overall and changes the way you think for the better. Language is an offshoot of thinking, and more ways of learning to speak/communicate translates to more ways of being to able to think and articulate a position. Bilingualism makes you smarter.