As long as they come with an instructional pamphlet, I'm for it.
you were on drugs and booze when you went to school..., that explains a lot ;)
Like my proper sentence structure? The glaring absence of ;) after every single one of my comments? Perhaps it's my attempt to understand your drivel that has you confused.
What abstinence? Who said anything about abstinence? Do you see the word, "abstinence" anywhere in my argument? I am preaching common sense. If you can't afford, you must abort ;)
Because abortions are so cheap and easy to come by? You may not have said abstinence, but that is what's being taught at most of our schools. We need to institute comprehensive sex education, as well as raising awareness on the detrimental effects of child-bearing too early in life.
You sound like the type that can't do drugs and booze and pass a class ;) Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut, I did.
Not true at all, Howard Roark, the protagonist of the Fountainhead. Good thing I didn't cite the Fountainhead.
No, it was obvious that you are wrong given the proper definition of monopoly. I disagree; although no corporation has successfully instituted a monopoly, a complete implementation was largely due to anti-trust legislation.
Isn't your god subject to infinite regression as well? Indeed, it is. Yup.
So, science sucks because we don't know everything yet? Why do you assume our ignorance is evidence for a creator?
There will be many more denominations of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. It's going to suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck.
Yes, it will still be here. Two-hundred years isn't really a long enough time-frame to hypothesize such wondrous things.
There once was a god in the gaps, who oft would recede into naps. By night and by day, he wasted away until his whole body collapsed.
I didn't say or imply it was monopolistic. Taggart Transcontinental was in the process of trying to establish a monopoly on rail service before Dagny parted ways with her brother and established the John Galt line (which she wasn't able to maintain anyway)
"cap·i·tal1 [kap-i-tl] Show IPA
noun
1. the city or town that is the official seat of government in a country, state, etc.: Tokyo is the capital of Japan.
2. a city regarded as being of special eminence in some field of activity: New York is the dance capital of the world.
3. capital letter.
4. the wealth, whether in money or property, owned or employed in business by an individual, firm, corporation, etc.
5. an accumulated stock of such wealth.
Rand never said that inheritance is earned. And much to her detriment, since every protagonist in her novel relies on inheritance to advance in the world. Without their inheritance, they would not have been able to do anything of any importance at all; they would have been moochers by Ayn's own standards.
Again, already been through the monopoly thing before. Indeed you have, and you are still wrong.
are you sure this is meant to dispute? You posted your comment on the "true" side; so, yes. I meant to dispute, even if I agreed with everything you said.
BTW, the "better funding" a bunch of crap. http://www2.census.gov/govs/school/
Texas relieves almost as much federal money as California. The funding is much larger in these states because there are many more people. But this funding should be allocated to improve the system, not to maintain it.
The ones that can do drugs and booze and still do well. Now that's a student ;) No; that's a moocher.
Maybe poor people should NOT have kids they can't afford ;) Maybe religious fundamentalists should stop teaching "abstinence only" and catch up with medical science.
it is unreasonable to expect that man and church be separate and as long as a government is meant to be an extension of the public then it cant separate from church or lack there of.
Is it unreasonable for a man to set aside his personal, religious beliefs where they may be in conflict with a majority of the population? If a persons religious convictions dictate he ought not use birth-control, is it unreasonable to ask he not impose that personal conviction on the nation as a whole?
Probably because she is in charge of operations During the construction of the John Galt line, Dagny was not employed at Taggart Transcontinental.
Adam Smith, in his seminal work The Wealth of Nations, described wealth as "the annual produce of the land and labour of the society". This "produce" is, at its simplest, that which satisfies human needs and wants of utility. In popular usage, wealth can be described as an abundance of items of economic value, or the state of controlling or possessing such items, usually in the form of money, real estate and personal property.
What is so wrong with inheritance? I haven't said a thing against inheritance. I'm only disputing the idea that inheritance is earned. Neither of the Taggart siblings did anything to earn their wealth other than to be borne unto the Taggart fortune.
Federal law has eliminated one single voluntary private monopoly, federal law only grants monopolies through force.
Federal anti-trust legislation prevents such monopolies from existing, contrary to your assertions.
Maybe they should have done better in High School ;) Maybe if their HS had better funding to attract better teachers to endow their students with a more effective education, they would have. Or, they could have gone to a private school, spent their parents money on drugs and booze, been expelled, and still make a better living than those who are below the poverty line.
He implies that those of us who conclude that God must be are thinking with our GUTS. Well, you haven't demonstrated you arrived at a deistic conclusion using your brain.
we theists conclude that God must be based on empirical evidence Show us atheists; we'll shut up.
The Sagan’s of this world are not just fools, but bullies. That's why all those astrophysicists are killing each other in the name of textbooks, right? Oh, those are theists murdering each other?
That's not what I argued at all. Nor is it what I argued, and yet here you are: “Right. The end of human experience and reason are the limitations of sensory perception. That‘s the ticket.” You have your straw man, as well.
Why don’t you put this alleged improbability into evidence and watch what I do to it. You claim to have empirical evidence for god: “Nonsense. Science does not find evidence. Science does not evaluate data. People do. And there is plenty of empirical data supporting the conclusion that God must be.” “This does not mean that we don't have empirical data pointing to God's existence as interpreted by any reasonable person.” “Once again, there is plenty of empirical evidence that supports the conclusion that God must be. “ Elivra also asked for this evidence, and was promptly ignored.
“I see God’s fingerprints all over the cosmos and beyond. I don’t give a hoot for the opinion of Hawking et al., particularly when they insist that teleological arguments are illegitimate, yet make them all the time themselves, albeit, to the negative, in their futile attempts to overcome the problems of infinite material regression and the amazingly conducive conditions for life in our cosmos, for example.” You see his fingerprints, you give no hoots. That’s fine for you. But this self-evidence is not evident to all. It is upon your shoulders to “show me” your god. Also, the vast majority of the universe is incompatible with human life. So, there’s that.
“Transcendent” means exceeding usual limits or being beyond comprehension. We have already filled many volumes with scientific data on things that, at one time, were transcendent.
Going back for a moment: "Sagan is dismissing the existence of the transcendent based on the limitations of sensory perception and the limitations of scientific inquiry" Sagan, like most other logical thinkers, refused to commit to the existence or non-existence of a deity because we have no evidence to draw from. None. Zero. Zip. Zlich. Nadda. Nothing. Therefore, Sagan is not dismissing the existence of the transcendent; he refused to comment on it. BAM!
Also, it's wonderful that a theist it posting his arguments to the "true" side and an atheist (myself) is posting to the "false" side. Wonderful; simply marvelous.
It's an over-reach of Federal power to outlaw prostitution, and this is coming from a big government liberal.
Also, when the "John Galt" line got up-and-running, it was Dagny who was in charge; not her moocher brother.
I'm an agnostic atheist; a de facto atheist. I don't believe god to be "unknowable." In light of not ever having seen convincing evidence of anything "super-natural," nor experiencing anything of the sort myself, I find the notion of a deity absurd and naive. To further state that not only is there a deity, but that it is a judgmental and regularly-intervening deity, is quite beyond ludicrous.
