I’m with you Ron, these atheists need to e kicked out of the college!

Have to disagree with Paul…since this is the same BS that is practiced in the Colorado Springs area at the military bases with all the extra-Christian cultic organizations/churches harassing anyone who doesn’t fit their image of what they believe someone should be. All this does is prove the atheists are right about Christians.

As a Christian…I am ashamed of the tactics of both sides in this “culture” war…but more so of those “Christians” who say they proclaim peace & love…but couldn’t spell or even get a basic grasp on either one.

I love that statement “Atheists actually tend to be rather knowledgeable about scripture,[...]” Not all Athiests, in fact less than 10% of the one’s I’ve spoken to (myself included not too long ago) did not have the reference.

Also, as you’ve pointed out, it’s a historical book. So when you interpret something spoken in a historical context but apply modern concepts and understandings to it not only do you take it out of context but you also tend to miss the point.

It’s like taking a history class out of college and replacing it with a porn club. It doesn’t make sense.

What they interrpret as “beat the child” is don’t hold back the rod. Today we believe that we know better, that spanking a child doesn’t do any good. Problem is all of those research studies include children who are spanked well into their teen years. Some even at the age of 18. It’s perfectly acceptable to spank before the age of 6. But these people speak about societal norms as being better than those given by God.

It’s very difficult to reason this out when you consider that they won’t even take God into consideration because they already don’t believe in Him. As such they can only call this smut because they believe it was written as such. Of course the Bible isn’t used for voyeurism like porn is. So even on that front their logic is skewed.

Way to give athiests and people of reason a bad name there folks.

Have you read your bible? Do you have any idea of the nasty and perverted stuff you are told to do? Once I finally read the bible and allowed myself to think about the things it said, it didn’t take long for me to be an atheist towards the Judeo-Christian god.

Most people are atheist towards all gods except their own, we just take it one god further… I now put Jesus and Yahweh where Zeus and Apollo have always been. They were the first step in rational thinking. We need to move on now. Let science lead the way, and enjoy the ride!

Christians are free to butcher books like The Origin of Species by adding opinion and bull as a introduction. Once upon a time people believed the earth to be flat. We have moved on…at least I hope we have.

Just MY 2 cents… Try “kicking me off campus” Paul, and see what happens, I dare you.

While I do not agree with the method that these atheists have used, I do agree with the sentiment.

Bibles are not equal to porn. Whether they are better or worse is a matter of opinion. In some families, it is significantly better, as it helps them maintain peace and comfort. In other families, it is used as a tool of absolute control and power.

Those that take the book as a metaphor for life are on the right track, as they typically see past the old ways and approach the book with an open mind on how it can help them. Those that look at the book as an absolute are stuck rationalizing and living in the bronze age it was written in.

As an atheist, I don’t mind people having religion, as long as it helps them and they keep it to themselves. Let those who are able to live their lives without religion do so.

Speaking for all intelligent Atheists, we will let you be as long as you let us be. We’ll both handle the idiots on our own sides as they crop up.

For a better understanding of atheists, please see my blog:
Land of Disillusionment
http://tinyurl.com/yc3tymv

“Let science lead the way, and enjoy the ride!”

I don’t mean to start a war and I hope it can be avoided. But science does not lead in moral and educational development. It cannot. It’s very nature won’t allow that. So it’s a very bad statement to be making.

The very nature of science requires debate and change. Even things we consider set in stone law are subject to be changed at a later date if further study shows it necessary. Science does not give us absolutes, only possibilities.

Evolution itself may one day be thrown out but for now it’s the foremost theory on the development of life on this planet.

So let Science worry about how the universe works. Let people decide how to go and where to go. Science will never lead us to an Ethical society that works well together. Religions quarrel but it’s a lack of following that religion that leads to wars. Conflict won’t be removed by removing religion.

It’ll simply change form. Athiests are just as likely start bloody horrible wars as religious people. Why? Because we are people and we have differing opinions. It’s how you approach conflict of belief, rarely the belief itself, that leads to conflict. Most wars, in fact, are over territory and material possessions. Not over conflicts of belief.

Remove an actual core moral system and you’re left with everyone’s own views. And according to science none of them are wrong so we’re all right. And it’s pointless to argue against any of them.

In most conversations I’ve had with people they point to all of the “bad things” we’re told to do as Christians. However most of their understandings are flawed.

What I think is very entertaining is that Historical criticisms use scientific processes to determine the meanings of things in history. And yet most Athiests don’t care to learn how to properly analyze these documents. They simply assume they know. There’s also language barriers. We have one word for love, but the Greek version of the Bible has four. Each with a specific meaning. We run into problems with these things. I find it interesting that some people spend their entire lives reading the bible, analyzing it, understanding it and they don’t have the same problems as the average Joe reading it on the street. Do they just understand it better? Or have they just convinced themselves beyond reason? Hard to say.

And keeping beliefs to each other avoids conflict, but doesn’t avoid feelings and actions based on those feelings. Separation of Church and state means that the state won’t declare one religion to be right. But by the very nature of democracy if that religion has the majority of the votes they can still influence law to match their beliefs. It’s how the system was set up.

A better method than keeping our religion at home, which honestly if the religion were true makes no sense at all and is entirely influenced by the belief (with no proof I might add) that religious beliefs are not true, is to provide conflict resolution education. Yes it is that simple.

But I’ve seriously overstepped my bounds here. Wouldn’t be surprised if this comment isn’t accepted.

First, I gave up Catholicism for Lent a long time ago.

I have no problem with following the Golden Rule, which is found in the religious texts of most religions. The Golden Rule passes sanity checks and consistency checks hands down.

What I have trouble with is the idea of worshiping a deity because It demands worship, and which requires followers of one religious group to worship one way, and a different way for another religious group. Sounds like pretty self centered and capricious being(s) to me.

What the above set of rules really requires is that followers should do what a human religious founder thought they should. Hence there are Catholics, Methodists, and Jehovah’s Witnesses, as well as Taoists, Hindus and Muslims. And of course agnostics, atheists, and many more.

Sorry–not worshiping any of these deities or belief systems till they get their acts together and come up with one set of sane rules. Send the designs back to the Systems Analysts…

“Sorry–not worshiping any of these deities or belief systems till they get their acts together and come up with one set of sane rules. Send the designs back to the Systems Analysts…”

So until they all agree, which is technically impossible seeing as the foundation of the belief is vastly different, you won’t believe in them. Interesting. But this in itself has a problem. You have essentially said that they are all wrong until they agree which is something that cannot be. This pre-supposes that disagreement is the equivalent of being untrue.

Each religion has it’s base belief on the very nature of the gods themselves and nature. Take Taoism, Hindusm, and Buddhism. They all believe that Nature itself has always existed and everything since then is a result. So what gods they have are less important than the fact of Nature itself.

With monotheistic religions the tendency is to believe that God always was, and nature came as a result of God desiring it. So these two systems can never agree. Does that automatically make them both untrue? Or does it meant that by allowing people to think for themselves someone abandoned the truth to follow their own way?

I readily admit it’s a possibility that both are wrong or only contain parts of a truth but it becomes a necessary point to consider these things and decide from there. Deciding that lack of concurrence is proof of being incorrect also means you can’t believe half of what scientists claim. The very nature of science, as I’ve stated before, is debate and change.

The problem with calling past beliefs hateful and closed-minded is that it pre-supposes that our current beliefs, and yes most of them are beliefs as opposed to scientific facts, are superior to previously held beliefs.

This is what results in many religious people contradicting themselves. Let’s face it, who wants to be declared the intolerant bigot by a group who cannot tolerate a difference in opinion on how inclusive people should be? If I state that gays are not born but in a sense made or confused I’m considered old fashioned, out of touch, and ignorant of the facts. However science, the thing most people tell me will solve all of our problems, cannot even decide if I’m right or the others are. It therefore becomes a stance of belief but I’m still considered wrong and evil for my beliefs.

Would you wish to be that way? I highly doubt it. So someone someday thought “these two passages seem contradictory unless I flip the meanings this way” and created what you now see as a contradiction. To which I fully agree, they are contradictory and it’s quite pathetic.

However look at your ending statement. You called any views that do not match up with our current “tolerant” views as inferior, narrow, and hateful. It’s this same intolerant hateful view of views opposite your own that brings out such contradiction. I believe we should stick to our guns if we say we’re going to believe something. But how is it any less contradictory to be all encompassing “open minded” only to be just as closed minded as those whom you disagree with?

It seems that if all religious belief is wasted effort that one thing remains the same for all human belief. We all need some form of leper to toss to the side and hate with equal abandon in order to remain even frailly united.

Just what are your credentials that qualify you to write this drivel??

The Microsoft Lifecam has good response from the Mac community from what I’ve seen (among non-Microsoft haters). The only reason I didn’t really recommend them is from lack of personal experience. Microsoft is known for having pretty decent hardware, though.

I was actually wondering how great the quality is offered by the C910 compared to Microsoft Lifecam 1080p The Carl Zeiss lenses seem to me a pretty strong point to make the jump to Logitech from Lifecam 720p but I do need advice.