kumquatq3

I'm starting to think the books Saywer reads only have a passing insight into the plot.

Who DARES move my thread!!?!? May you internet explorer be infected by many viruses

Historically, there is no reason to doubt their existence. I completely disagree, see above post. I would say there is nothing to support the story as fact or Moses as a real person (close to the person in the story)

Greed, hate, and humanity are tied together too. Doesn't mean their good. Not that I'm slapping religion with that label, but I disagree with that point as proof to anything. The first set of laws were interesting, they had a prologue and a closing that basically were prayers to the gods chiefly cursing those that neglect or destroy the law. Some of those laws being: If any one buy a male or female slave, and before a month has elapsed the benu-disease be developed, he shall return the slave to the seller, and receive the money which he had paid. If a slave say to his master: "You are not my master," if they convict him his master shall cut off his ear. If he hire an ass for threshing, the hire is twenty ka of corn. If any one steal a water-wheel from the field, he shall pay five shekels in money to its owner. If any one find runaway male or female slaves in the open country and bring them to their masters, the master of the slaves shall pay him two shekels of silver. Mostly stuff dealing with dowry's, slaves, what crime results in what body part or child being killed (Good news! Faulty roofing only got your first born son killed!), payment for ox rental, etc Is the first written laws we know of important? Surely. Greater Good? You decided. Science? Nah. Nature. It's awe inspiring to me to see things play out, step by step. What works moves on. What doesn't eventually fails. I know there is a respectable argument that a guy named Jesus existed at some point. However, as for Moses, their isn't a shred of evidence outside the religious texts. You think that 600,000+ people walking through the desert for 40 years would leave some sort of trail. Plus, the Ancient Egyptians were fantastic record keepers. Texts, sculpture and artifacts testify to a sophisticated culture. There is no evidence for the existence of Moses. Although he is portrayed as an influential member of the Egyptian royal household, he is not mentioned in any Egyptian record. Nor is there any evidence to support the idea that the Jews were ever held captive in Egypt or that they made any exodus from the country under Moses

Remind me never to go egg shopping with you

Does pumping the fish oil out of the fish hurt them? When will our bloodlust be filled by Omega-3's?

Teradactyl = Pre-Historic angels of death

I'll worry about that next year

I always thought that Beckham defined the term So, the closer you get to him, the more metro-y you are.

Right click the underlined word and it will offer suggestions. I've noticed that it can be a crap shoot sometimes.

Show me a preview were they don't suck **** Their reviews, however, are usually the best of the major online review sites. IMO.

Right, me too, except replace "reading" with "Drinking" and "book" with "vodka" and "Sleep" with "dead hooker"

The Good: Good death animations. The Bad: Numerous crashes and glitches get in the way; minimal character building and progression; most of the game's combat is unsatisfying; storyline is almost completely transparent right off the bat. http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/darkmess...gic/review.html oops!

But it makes them seem so smart We need a "doe-eyed" smiley

1. I don't really know what would happen in their eyes if you changed your support (to answer the first part) But: Reporter: "Now a lot of people find great comfort from religion. Not everybody is as you are---well-favored, handsome, wealthy, with a good job, happy family life. I mean, your life is good---not everybody's life is good, and religion brings them comfort." Dawkins: "There are all sorts of things that would be comforting. I expect an injection of morphine would be comforting---it might be more comforting, for all I know. But to say that something is comforting is not to say that it's true." that might be a reply to your second part 2. That puppies head look alot like Fox McCloud's head. I kept waiting for him to get into an Arwing.

Speaking of odds, the actual odds of the universe just being a random action aren't too great either. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually, Dawkins has a GREAT (imo) argument about that. I'll try to dig it up in a bit.

who said god, you didn't mmm....supermodels

Well, if she's hot, wouldn't be the first time! :D Can I get a zing?

See, PS3 is the true kiddie system!

"In Deep ****"

Morning paper: U.S.A. Annexes Britain: Bush determined to remove WMD's, renames country "Sherryll". Weather: Rainy

i wasn't trying to say there are no repurcussions. that's the other nifty catch with the ability to voice unpopular opinions: you have to put up with other people lashing back. likewise, if a company behaves in a manner that is oppressive (religion, race, etc.), boycott. make it known that their practices are unacceptable, etc... it works. I see what you're saying, I do, but your "backlash" idea is exactly why people hide such views. When there is no backlash, like some places in the south, no "backlash" occurs. Not to mention, Joe vs. Giant Corp isn't a straight up fair fight. So what then? You could just move on, but is that justice? Is that Liberty? Obviously gets grey here there are plenty of contradictions in modern times, but one can not argue that private industry as a whole has only gotten more successful in the last 20 years. Obviously not due to this stuff, but I don't think it has measurably hurt it. Where I do think open hate speech would. Economics not being a moral or legal, of course... Quotas and such? I agree, as a white male, their not "right". I fail to come up with something that works better in practice.

It's more about how you approach believers than anything. Same "disbelief" Still, I'd be hard pressed to lump all the guys in the article together.

Having no grounds to speak to it, nor have I even gotten Dawkins new book yet, I'll give it a shot (also, I note some import differences between Dawkins and the other profiled, so I'm going by how the article defines the "movement". Rather than any one guy): My guess? You're more against them than with them. Maybe even "worse" than the hardcore believer, depending on how you spin it. From the articles perspective: At best you give power to the religion you believe in. You may have no problems with gays or condoms, but when your church speaks against them, it's credited with having you in it's numbers. They don't say: "There is X amount of Catholics/Christians in the word and X% of them are partial believers". You may not want to stone gays, but you help give power to those that do. The worst case scenario would be that you "understand" but choose to be ignorant. You see the flaws, you see the problems with it all (article, remember) and you choose to "kinda" believe anyways. So they may argue that you are worse than those that believe out of ignorance or stupidity, because you get it, but believe out of fear, blind hope, or something else. I suppose it's viewed sorta like hearing gun shots outside and hearing someone screaming for help, but instead of helping, you just pull down the shades and ignore it. ....Good men do nothing and all that

I agree people should be able to speak their mind. However, I don't believe that gives that them immunity from any response. I think words can have an impact much like a glass ceiling can. In fact, I don't think you can have such speech and not have some negative effect on someone because of it. I see your idea working in theory, but not in practice. Remember, separate doesn't mean equal for a reason. Because it never was. not sure what you mean here. we've strayed so far off course, i'm not sure either of us is certain what the other is getting at... par for the course in multi-page debates i suppose. hehe... taks And we are having 2 at once. I simply meant, we're talking about racist speech, and not physically actions or other impediments that can result in glass ceilings or lower pay, etc