zapatos

This common practice has nothing to do with freedom of religion in the US. Our freedoms are protected by law.

Yes, I understood what you were saying. I wasn't questioning that. I was just pointing out that in your post you said, among other things: 'Atheism is not about evidence, it is about wanting evidence.' I just thought it was an interesting way to say it.

Well, maybe on paper, but not in reality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

Yep. Probably why they have about 4 million views!

I know you didn't mean it this way but the wording sounded strange to me...

I feel for you and the stress those type of things induce. I said this before in another thread but it's worth repeating. Stress is the body's reaction to the mind's decision not to choke the living shit out of some asshole who desperately needs it.

Freedom of religion should be protected by the constitution because it is likely that without this guarantee, the free practice of religion would be severly constrained. Freedom of speech should also be protected. I cannot imagine a government by the people being successful without this right. They are protected by law. I'm not quite sure what you are looking for here.

Just like they do in the movies, but a little less professionally done.

Well, yes actually. I think the Sarah Palin crosshairs issue was self controlled. Enough pressure came to bear on her to get rid of the map, and I haven't seen anything like it since from anyone else. I don't know what you would do in your scenario but I assume you would first give them a chance to do the right thing before something bad happened. That to me is self controlled. But I feel the same way you do. If someone did that to my family, one way or the other it would stop.

The legitimate freedom it serves is freedom of speech. Whether or not it should be illegal is a matter of opinion, but as a matter of law wishing someone ill is legal. While I object to the occasional crosshairs map, I'd rather see it being self controlled than controlled by law.

Well, here was my question. I don't know how else to state it. You implied a cause and effect. 'we evolved in small groups' so 'we are unable to really show much compassion and concern for those who are outside of what we regard as our group'. What is your evidence to back up this claim?

It would help people to respond if you answered the questions imatfaal asked.

I'd even say that it is not the ideals, it is the people. The ideals, religions, etc. are just a convenient mechanism for people to use that allow them to act out their true nature. Stalin and Hitler were willing to kill to gain and hold power. If religion was not available to be used as a talking point, then it would have been economics, the evil neighbors across the border, skin color, etc. I imagine religion actually changes some, but I'm more inclined to belive that people who gravitate to religion do so because religion allows them to act out who they really are, whether for good or bad.

I don't think root beer is a chemical component of dynamite.

Too fast on the rocks for one thing. Also, when it was flipped over it was stiff like a frisbee. The volume it expelled. Lack of any obvious mechanism for exploding.

I'm from the midwest so it's probably more conservative here. But the young women do often dress very provocatively. It's kind of creepy for me when someone who caught my eye turns toward me and I realize that she is about 15.

I have no idea what it is, but if I had to guess I'd say it's an attempt to get a high number of views on YouTube.

Where do you live? It is rare for me to see a bit of women's underware in public, I'm not sure exactly what you are seeing to be able to say women aren't wearing underware at all, and I have never seen 'tufts of pubic hair popping out' whether teasingly or in any other manner.

Hee hee. Based on how often men and women talk about each other, I'd have to guess that men and women think about each other with roughly the same frequency. The big difference I've seen is that when guys think about women, they tend to think about the woman that most recently passed through their field of vision. Women on the other hand (from an outsiders viewpoint) seem to be much more selective in who they think about. Seems like they are more likely to focus on a single man or a small set of men at one time.

I am not much of an 'around the campfire' type of person. I tend to take things at face value and do not see or seek out hiddden meaning. I'm always happy to entertain a new line of argument, but if I have to do mental gymnastics and kind of look with my eyes half closed, it usually does not interest me.

No, I have to admit that taking the time to prove myself to you did not occur to me. If you wish to think of me as a troll I guess I'll just have to live with that.

That was not an answer to your question, it was my response to you calling me a troll. Since you think I am trolling I figured that responding to your question would be a waste of time. I was doing my best to express my thoughts and you found that lacking. Why waste your time and mine?

It is nothing. That is why you cannot find anything about it and why it will not occur.

Oh right, thanks for reminding me! Also ring around the collar, the heartbreak of psoriasis, demons, the Loch Ness Monster...

Gingivitis, heart disease, mold in your shower, an asteroid strike, ingrown toenails, maximum entropy, the flavor of icing on your birthday cake... Reversal of the gravitational field comes after all of those worries.