More people are killed by drunk drivers every year than by gun violence. Since Jim doesn’t drink alcohol, where’s his “funny” video about the heartless people who are against prohibition? Surely he wants to take away that right too? I mean, just because something is in the constitution doesn’t mean that we still shouldn’t outlaw it, right? OK, maybe not all alcohol, just the hard liquor should be outlawed. And they should limit the size of the alcohol containers….
March 11, 2013 at 1:53pm
If he really cares about health, then Bloomberg just doesn’t make any sense. What he says with his “If you want to have 32 ounces, just buy two 16-ounce cups.” is that they really don’t care how much you drink, they just want more taxes. It’s like buying in bulk. You don’t have to pay for as much packaging when you buy in bulk. When you have to buy 2 x 16oz cups, you end up paying more. Example, if you go to the movies, you pay $5 for a 16oz drink, but you only pay $8 for a 32oz drink. So Bloomberg is saying I want you to spend $10 instead of $8 so i can get the additional taxes. Who cares about portion control? No one. Who cares about more taxes? Bloomberg. Not to mention the additional trash his policy would create.
Maybe we should just ask for the drinks like Steven Wright: “I’ll take a small drink in a large cup, and just fill it the rest of the way up.”
March 6, 2013 at 1:39pm
This is happening all over. Here in Texas, my daughter got a letter sent home saying her BMI was too high for a 4th grader. Which is stupid because she spends a minimum of 10 hours a week doing gymnastics and actually has muscle definition in her arms and legs. We promptly ignored the note and let her eat whatever she wants within reason because she exercises so much. Like Just_Us2 said, BMI is a scam. They try to judge everybody the same all the while claiming that everyone is different.
February 22, 2013 at 1:14pm
I was really just referring to the general discussion of whether or not the Bible is true, not about the Urban Dictionary comments. I believe that it is true and that there is compelling evidence to back it up. Others disagree and point to their own evidence. That’s all fine and good and intelligent conversation can be had between both parties.
It’s the people like those using the Urban Dictionary to ridicule and laugh at the discussion that show their own ignorance. Again, not for their belief, but for their actions.
February 22, 2013 at 12:43pm
It’s hard to get worked up about something like this. How is a public forum saying something negative about a religion surprising? You get a lot of the same things in these forums.
The people with the negative comments want to be perceived as either shocking, or witty, or maybe both. They think it’s cool or funny to make fun of something they disagree with. They show their own ignorance, not because they don’t believe what the Bible has to say, but rather that they stoop to the level they do in order to essentially do nothing but offend someone else. There is no intelligent discussion on the issue. Just an effort to presumably embarrass someone into agreeing with them.
I hear most of what you're saying but, what kind of intelligent conversation is there to be had surrounding something called the Urban Dictionary? These people are a twisted joke and deserve to be mocked.
I was really just referring to the general discussion of whether or not the Bible is true, not about the Urban Dictionary comments. I believe that it is true and that there is compelling evidence to back it up. Others disagree and point to their own evidence. That's all fine and good and intelligent conversation can be had between both parties.
It's the people like those using the Urban Dictionary to ridicule and laugh at the discussion that show their own ignorance. Again, not for their belief, but for their actions.
yes, and imagine that eloquent man Noah Webster and what he would say...my guess?
'just a few more misfits trafficking in that which proves their ignorance.'
February 12, 2013 at 10:19am
I would LOVE to see this in the US. It would be perfect! That would confirm the fact that Atheism is indeed a religion (they have their own church and everything.) And since they are a religion with their own church, there would have to be a “separation of church and state.” Therefore, schools would have to stop teaching the ridiculousness of Evolution since that is one of the main beliefs of the Atheist/Humanist religion. Therefore the choice would have to be made, either allow creationism to be taught, or disallow evolution. You can’t play favorites on which religion is OK to teach, right?
Excellent thoughts MrBig. I've always said I don't have enough faith to be an athiest.
3 But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2 People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4 treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.
Isn't this Atheist Church a reboot of the "religion of reason" that turned France into a madhouse during the French Revolution?
"Therefore, schools would have to stop teaching the ridiculousness of Evolution since that is one of the main beliefs of the Atheist/Humanist religion"
That doesn't much make sense, as evolution isn't an atheist belief - it's scientific theory (and interestingly, one accepted by many Christians including all those belonging to the Roman Catholic church; former pope John Paul II stated it was true). If atheism was a religion, it would mean that teachers aren't allowed to teach that there is definitely no God. And as far as I know, teachers don't teach that now anyway!
"it uses traditional church practices and adapts them to a non-believing audience" Of course there is no reason to believe that any religion would borrow or adapt things from other faiths or religious figures. Really?? how about the description of 7 religious figures that preceded JC. Hmmm see any similarities.
And if you are saying, even by implication, that said "Scientific THEORY" doesn't have gaping HOLES in it then you ain't been paying attention for the last quarter century.
Back in the 90s I was seeing contemporary media stuff about a switch from "Classic" "Gradual" evolution to "gaps" and "jumps". I was reading stories of Scientists who FAVORED a "seeding from space" even "alien seeding" theory to explain the holes. Today I am reading/seeing about "membrane universes" and "life tailored Earth".
Most Christians have little problem with THEORY presented as THEORY, as POSSIBLE Explanation, LK. But that ain't what HAPPENS is it? What HAPPENS is THEORY presented as FACT, and ALTERNATE Theory rejected as FALSE simply because it Posits a Non-Material Universe.
A GLARING a priori double standard and question begging.
Evolution is no more (or less) "provable" than Creationism. To say ONE is Science "FACT" a bold faced LIE to turn "Theory" into "FACT", and the other is a FALSE BELIEF is to make a PRE-judgement from a BIASED World View.
Believing in evolution doesnt mean you don't believe in god it just means that you do believe in science. Evolution has scientific evidence to support it. In otherwords, it would remain in science class bc there is scientific evidence to support it. When there is scientific evidence to support creationism then it will be taught in science class.
By that logic, christians believe in gravity, therefore gravity is a religious belief? Please work on presenting a better argument.
We know where this path leads: confiscation of church lands, removal of statues, plates and other iconography from places of worship, destruction of crosses, bells and other external signs of worship
the institution of revolutionary and civic cults, including the Cult of Reason, the enactment of a law making all nonjuring priests and all persons who harboured them liable to death on sight.
I think it's laughable when people say "I believe in science", when science is not about belief. There's nothing more irrelevant than a 15 year old science textbook. Science is a discipline about discovery that was handed to us by men who believed in the Bible! Speaking of which conclusion drawn by textual scholars is that the Dead Sea Scrolls confirm the accuracy in the transmission of the text of the Old Testament back 1000 years earlier than the manuscripts that existed prior to their find.
@The Big Mick
"And if you are saying, even by implication, that said “Scientific THEORY” doesn’t have gaping HOLES in it then you ain’t been paying attention for the last quarter century."
I'm sorry, but your rant is wrong. Just because -you- don't understand evolution or what makes something a scientific theory, doesn't mean the rest of us don't. You might start your research into what a "scientific theory" actually is, and how it differs from the layman's usage of "theory."
By-and-large, Christians are fine with evolution being taught as a scientific theory. It's not some atheist boogyman; it's just science that helps explain the world.
Another funny thing is that when I speak to Atheist about God often times they say "you can't prove a negative" meaning you can't prove that God does not exist. If this is so then why do they try so hard and why this "church"?
The fact is that they really do know God exist but they don't want to accept Him.
I don't believe in Mickey Mouse, Buddha or Islam so I don't feel a big need to try to prove it, I know the truth and the truth has set me free. Build a church to Mickey Mouse if you want; it won't affect my faith (maybe make it stronger) it's just a Freudian slip anyway.
 But in the prophets of Jerusalem
I have seen a horrible thing:
they commit adultery and walk in lies;
they strengthen the hands of evildoers,
so that no one turns from his evil;
all of them have become like Sodom to me,
and its inhabitants like Gomorrah.”
 Therefore thus says the LORD of hosts concerning the prophets:
“Behold, I will feed them with bitter food
and give them poisoned water to drink,
for from the prophets of Jerusalem
ungodliness has gone out into all the land.”
(Jeremiah 23:14-15 ESV)
I read the other day that gravity is the "god holding down force". I suppose since science merely has a "theory", the former should be taught in school instead. After all, belief in god has been around a lot longer than science so we shouldn't change things too hastily.
Good point. sidenote**Stevie Wonder would object to them using one of his songs, for he is a believer of the most high. Jehovah.
"The fact is that they really do know God exist but they don’t want to accept Him."
Is that a fact? Exactly how do you know that? Is it your god given talent for mind reading?
"I don’t believe in Mickey Mouse, Buddha or Islam so I don’t feel a big need to try to prove it, I know the truth and the truth has set me free."
All I can see is that you feel your truth has set you free from needing any justification for your truth.
Look, you apparently don't understand what they're trying to make clear with this whole "can't prove a negative" business. We'll make this a really simple exercise though so the entire class can follow along. Let's say we replace "god" with "Mickey Mouse" in the statement "I believe god is the creator of the entire universe". So now instead we have the statement "I believe Mickey Mouse is the creator of the entire universe". I don't think this is going to be a stretch but I'm willing to bet you disagree with that statement. Of course you do, it's rediculous to think that Mickey Mouse created the universe. Yet, here you are with somebody in your face telling you that's the truth and if you know what's good for you, you'd better get with the program and believe it. How exactly do you refute that claim other than saying you see no evidence for it and choose not to believe it.
Bzzz!!! Your time is up and you haven't looked under every rock. Yup, unproveable negative.
I believe life is a journey of discovery and that we are not all at the same mile marker.
Those who think their belief in God is proof that they are farther down the path than a non-believer (or a different denomination), should exercise patience and teach those who are behind them.
Likewise, those that believe their non-belief in an 'imaginary friend' is proof that they have progressed ahead of the believer, should also exercise patience toward the believers.
The problem lies with the 'I'm better than you' attitude from both parties.
Have faith (pun intended) that people who seek the truth will eventually find it.
Meanwhile, let your life and your joy in being you be a beacon to those you are trying to guide.
The actions of others has no affect on my salvation - however my berating them and ridiculing them may have consequences.
Good for these folks - no harm, no foul.
Grubmeister, God knew you were going to say that:
 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.  For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.  For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.  For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.  Claiming to be wise, they became fools,  and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,  because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
(Romans 1:18-25 ESV)
The more I read your posts, the more often I find myself nodding and agreeing with you. God bless you!
I hate it when milk comes out my nose from laughing. Everyone thinks it's pretty funny but I find it embarassing.
Actually, when I saw your first line I instinctively looked up to see if there was a giant floating disembodied hand pointing a finger at me.
Actually, I didn't do any of that.
I just don't know what to do with a person who throws quotes at me from the bible. We're not living in the same world. I suppose as an agnostic atheist I should say there is "some" possibility I'll one day admit you've proven me wrong. From my perspective there's probably zero chance you'll wind up admitting I've proven you wrong. I mean, you'd be dead and at that point you don't get to contemplate the supernatural or a life wasted believing a myth. That fickle finger of fate may yet point my way but all I can hope for from you is honesty. I mean if you've never met god, jesus or whoever it is you worship...and you can't tell the difference between warm fuzzies and a real experience...I've got nothin'.
I'm really not operating under any illusion here regarding my ability to change minds based on lack of evidence. Do you think quoting the bible or saying "god knows what you think" is somehow going to be more successful? Can you help me out here man?
Grubmeister, we are living in the same world and that's kinda the point. We have different world views, certainly, but only one is correct where they disagree. I agree you cannot sway someone who believes on faith. Also, it's not my goal to convince you there is a God. If I can convince you, someone else can unconvince you. The counter point to that is you also have faith to believe what you believe.
However, I do believe we are all under condemnation for rejecting God until we believe by faith and as a believer and follower of Christ it's my duty to obey. So, unlike Brother Ed's live and let live philosophy, I would prefer to scream at the person who's about to get hit by a bus. Since faith comes by hearing, I know of nowhere else to turn but the Word of God.
If you really want to understand where I am coming from, you'll just have to read the bible. It is amazing! Are you willing to do that?
Christians believe in evolution, too. At least the intelligent ones do.
Like so many folks today, these people want to run with the ethics of Jesus while rejecting his very divinity. Hypocrisy much??? But that cannot be done. The ethics he demands can only come from a relationship with God, which he came to restore for us. Until we embrace his teachings that we are sinners alienated from God, we certainly cannot live up to his ethics.
Absolutely agree! Having a 'church' is the antithesis of what an atheist supposedly stands for. That they need somewhere to gather just shows that they do believe in something! They believe in science and recognize it as a 'power greater than themselves', which is what they claim NOT to believe in. What a joke on them. The fact that they use a church format is even funny. I think they just proved that there really is no such thing as an atheist! It would seem that everyone has to believe in something.
There is a Freethinker "church" near Dallas.
BigDick, you're a dumb, dimwitted, foolish arzehoal. You have no grasp of science. Please go to your nearest library and check out a Biology text.
I totally agree! I always say snidely that atheism is a religion, but I'm serious, and this proves it! It is the belief that God doesn't exist, hence it is a belief system!
You should do a little research before bashing people.
"That would confirm the fact that Atheism is indeed a religion (they have their own church and everything.)"
No. Let's look at Webster's definitions of religion: "the service and worship of God or the supernatural" and " a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith". By definition atheists do not worship the supernatural. As for the second definition, I will not deny a small percentage may hold that belief with "ardor and faith" but I have never met any. All the atheists (mostly skeptical libertarian/republican types) I know do not (or try not) to hold their atheism, politics or any other belief with "ardor and faith". If any evidence comes up contrary I know many (myself included) that would change our minds.
"...there would have to be a “separation of church and state.” Therefore, schools would have to stop teaching the ridiculousness of Evolution since that is one of the main beliefs of the Atheist/Humanist religion. Therefore the choice would have to be made, either allow creationism to be taught, or disallow evolution. You can’t play favorites on which religion is OK to teach, right?"
There is no "main belief" of atheism. Atheist means non-gods believer. For example what is the main belief for non-stamp collectors? See this doesn't work? Are you saying science is the "main belief"? If so, then you could add "germ theory", "gravitational theory"
But even if atheism was a religion, which it isn't, that wouldn't make the theory of evolution a religion. Are there religious people who believe in the theory of evolution? Yes. Are there atheists who don't believe in the theory of evolution? Yes.
You can call it a religion if you want, it would be a non-mythological one. I wonder if they pass around a collection plate expecting their 10% just like any other church.
January 16, 2013 at 6:07pm
There are any number of scientific laws in place, tested over and over, that point to an intelligent Designer rather than a creator. Laws like “Every effect has an adequate, antecedent cause.” The physical universe is an effect, and must therefore have an adequate antecedent cause. Laws of Thermodynamics stating that matter can neither be created or destroyed. Scientific principles like these point to an intelligent designer, and refute the “Big Bang” and evolution.
Now the reverse can be asked of you. Can you provide any evidence for Macro-Evolution that can be tested and retested? Can you provide any evidence for the “Big Bang” that can be tested and re-tested? You have no evidence for macro-evolution, only micro-. You have to prove macro-evolution, which has never been done.
I’m pretty sure all I will hear is crickets.
January 16, 2013 at 5:47pm
Actually Mule is not a new species. As stated by Kaydeebeau it was a horse and donkey bred to make a mule. But a mule is sterile and cannot breed with anything, including other mules. So the only thing you can do is breed to very similar species of equines to get a sterile animal. It’s like saying you could breed a dog and a wolf. They are still both canines.
January 16, 2013 at 1:20pm
Gravity is not a theory, it is a law. Macro-Evolution is a theory. It has never been proven or demonstrated. Micro-Evoluition is a fact. You can breed two dissimilar dogs to come up with a “new” breed of dog (Micro-Evolution) but you will never get something that is not a dog (Macro-Evolution).
To believe in Macro-Evolution, you have to agree that either something gave birth to an animal that was not like itself (i.e. a monkey giving birth to a non-monkey), or that an animal, sometime within it’s life-span, turned into another animal (i.e. a monkey was walking through the jungle, and in the next instant it was no longer a monkey.) That would be the only two options no matter how many millions of years you add into the mix. One of those two things would have to occur for Macro evolution to be true.
January 16, 2013 at 11:48am
“These schools have every right to teach whatever they want — no matter how much I disagree with it — as long as they are fully private,” he told io9. “But when they take public money through vouchers, these schools need to be accountable to the public in the same way that public schools are and they must abide by the same rules.”
That’s funny. Because in public schools, it doesn’t matter whether or not Christians agree with or like what is being taught. They are forced to fund it anyway. Apparently he forgets that Christians are members of the public as well, and people are often forced to fund things that go against their personal beliefs whether it is creation, evolution, abortion, capital punishment, etc.
October 2, 2012 at 12:13pm
“If those in our school do lean left, it is not because they are gay and lesbian but because they have, in general, more tolerant and open-minded views.”
How very open-minded and tolerant of you to imply that anyone who doesn’t agree with a “left-leaning” position are intolerant and close-minded. That is the point that I took from Matt Birk’s article. Just like if you don’t agree with Gay Marriage you are labeled as a “bigot and a homophobe” as the article states, if you aren’t a “liberal” or “progressive” then you are intolerant and close-minded.
How intolerant and close-minded of you.
October 2, 2012 at 10:38am
I agree. I think it is hilarious when Kluwe says, (paraphrasing) don’t go to this study because it’s biased… and then immediately says, here’s your proof ” as evidenced by a meta-study of nineteen different LBGT studies”
I wonder, do you think LBGT studies would be interested in a study that shows nothing wrong with LBGT marriage?
October 2, 2012 at 10:11am
“According to NOAA, the odds of being struck by lightning in a given year are one in a million.”
And yet people are struck by lightning all the time. One in a million is hardly out of the realm of possibility.
October 2, 2012 at 9:58am
Guess where these came from:
Art. II. It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly and at stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. …Therefore, To promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies-politic or religious societies to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.
That’s right, the Constitution of Massachusetts 1780. Now let me see…who wrote that one again? Once again you are correct. John Adams. The first Vice-President and second President of the United States.
September 27, 2012 at 5:03pm
That really can’t be a blanket statement about all public schools. I have 3 kids. One of them is Private School and the other two in public. When the private school raised tuition to the point where we couldn’t keep all 3 in, we let the oldest stay since she only had a couple of years left. The other two are very happy in their schools. They are still getting a good education and have opportunities to advance more than at the private school that didn’t have means of advancing students other than skipping a grade. My daughters are starting Pre-AP classes earlier and are a part of the Gifted and Talented programs that are not available in the private school that my oldest attends.
So I wouldn’t make a sweeping statement about the evils of public education, just that there are places where it is very poorly handled (usually due to being in a poor area.) Then again, I live in Texas where I am not aware of any Teacher’s Union, with it being a Right to Work state.
September 27, 2012 at 4:36pm
Very typical of Liberals of all color and creed. Make an accusation, and when you are refuted with facts, completely ignore the facts and change the subject. When the new subject doesn’t support your argument either, ignore the facts and change it again.
While not a huge fan of Ann Coulter, I think she handled herself very well during the process. They accused her of going back to the past and she simply responds, “I only went back to the past because it was brought up.” They accuse her of supporting the minority voter suppression, and when she points out the facts of a Democratic Legislature is the first one to pass Voter ID’s and they immediately say “yeah, but…” and then scatter on to other subjects. The ninnies on the View are just like everyone has said, “cackling hens”.
September 26, 2012 at 10:26am
@ ITGUY “Don’t buy the wraps! It‘s their product they are selling and if you don’t like it and they won‘t change it then don’t pay them for it. Maybe they will catch the hint.”
But here is the thing. The only thing not buying it will do is have them make fewer and fewer until they stop offering the wrap as a choice. It’s not like this cafeteria is a Wraps Only place that will close down if they don’t sell enough wraps and the the owner has his mortgage riding on the business.
These kid whining about the wraps not being folded is ridiculous. If the school cafeteria were about “accomodating us” then they should be complaining about how they don’t serve lobster and Sir Loin steaks and whatever top cut foods they want (all for the same price.) Yes the poorer students don’t have a choice to go elsewhere. So you take what you get.
September 24, 2012 at 5:54pm
I hear you about the too few jobs and too many people. I don’t know what your degree is in or what region of the country you live in, but part of what most people are saying is that expanding your search not only includes what businesses to apply for, and what level of work you are seeking, but also where you are willing to work (i.e. are you willing to move to another location to get a job?) @Peace Maker mentioned a lot of jobs available in Denver, and areas of Utah. I know here in North Texas there are a LOT of positions that are needing to be filled. Are you willing to move across the country to find work?
Some people (and I’m not accusing you) just want to look in their immediate vicinity and if nothing is available, they give up. Think about the Great Depression and Dust Bowl era. There were people who owned their own farms in middle America that made their way across the country because they heard there was opportunity for work. They didn’t sit back and wait for the government to take care of them.
Some people won’t take a job that they feel is “below” them. My brother is one of them. Somehow living on unemployment isn’t below them, but mowing lawns and doing landscaping is. There is no set solution for your problem, but I don’t assume you are just sitting on your butt waiting for something to happen. But if you are, broaden your horizons.
September 18, 2012 at 6:05pm
Two things that my help you out:
1. No where does it say two of every “species” as we define them today. A reasonable and plausable assumption is that it would have been “two” of a broad category such as “dogs”, “horses”, “cows”, etc. and not “two austrailian shepherds, and two german shepherds,” etc. And that these broader representations contained within them the genetic diversity to produce all the subcategories that man has devised in the modern era.
2. Micro-evolution is a FACT. And no reasonable person will dispute this. It is plainly seen that you can breed in or breed out charicatristics to create a “new” species. However Macro-Evolution is illogical because no matter how many times you breed two different dogs, the result of a breeding is still a dog. That is unless you believe that something gave birth to something that was not the same kind as itself (i.e. two dogs giving birth to a beaver) or that something changed in it’s lifetime to a different species (i.e. a dog walking down a path is at one instant a dog, and the very next instant a beaver.) The Evolutionists can add all the time they want and all the number of changes they want, but that’s what it comes down to, one of those two choices.
September 18, 2012 at 5:53pm
Of course it will be the normal reactions from both sides. Those who are looking to refute Biblical texts will use this to claim with certainty that the Bible is absolutely false. Those who hold to the Biblical texts will automatically dismiss it as bogus. And they will both argue about it fervently.
The only thing I will say about it is that it definitely says that someone named Jesus claims a wife. And that some female could be a diciple (which of course is true because a diciple is a follower of Jesus,) not necessarily an Apostle.