venomai

Ironically, the more guns they supply to the so-called law abiding citizens, the more guns end up in the hands of criminals. I don't mean to come off as if I'm saying "down syndrome is nothing," as it certainly is a great task to deal with, but there are many physical disabilities that require much more care. Take, for example, severe cerebral palsy or Duchenne muscular dystrophy. I have worked with special need children and, although I loved the kids, I must take my hat off to the parents who are not only able to devote hundreds of thousands of dollars a year and several hours a day of physically demanding work to keep the child alive, but are also willing to do so.

Mm.. intuition is an interesting topic. :lol: I find myself running into many unexplainable and highly unlikely coincides. Yet in the grand scheme of things, the amount of coincidences that occur in my life shy in comparison to the amount of non-coincidences. I'd be interested to see more research on intuition in the near future. :D

Not really. Alcohol, tobacco and caffeine are all psychoactive "drugs" that are all fully legal and well supported by the government. Ugh... The day marijuana is fully legalized is the day tobacco companies rejoice and begin to produce machine-rolled (batched) cannabis joints en masse. It's a sad day for anyone who enjoys smoking marijuana. Even the Netherlands, which are well known for their lenient marijuana laws, are not under full legalization. It's a simple decriminalization -- a removal of criminal punishments for cultivating, possessing, selling and using small quantities of marijuana.

An embryo and fetus cannot develop without a mother... hence it is not a potential human? :lol: One's dependence on another individual (or a device) to stay alive should be no grounds for whether or not we classify them as a "human." I've never understood this argument. Is it some sort of weak attempt to justify the right to bear arms? Or is it a general statement that a gun -- like all other man-made 'tools' (medicine, nuclear missiles, etc) -- requires human interaction to serve its purpose? If the latter, what relevance does it serve in the gun control debate? (Sorry to digress...) Of course, if the person had died, they would have no concept of life (let alone life in an orphanage) and therefore couldn't really judge whether or not they would prefer it to death.

Most of Australia has decriminalized, but not legalized, personal use and possession of marijuana. In South Australia, for example, growing and selling is illegal, but personal use will only result in a civil fine. If the fine is paid within 60 days, a criminal conviction can be avoided. There are still problems with marijuana in Australia, and many pot users (especially those that prefer to cultivate their own plants rather than buy from the black market) are unhappy with the current laws/regulations. Australia's black market grow-ops are still as much of a problem as they ever were. A few states in the U.S. are already beginning to decriminalize marijuana for personal use. Hopefully we can avoid the same mistakes that were made by Australian and Dutch marijuana reforms.

To you it may not be such a crazy theory, but to me and many others it really is. Although these concepts are not of equal importance, others see them all as equally imaginative and equally unrealistic beliefs. What does the objective changes on a quantum level in the double-slit experiment have to do with subjective ignorance on a tree falling in a distant forest? The lack of evidence and the lack of understanding strongly suggests that no god exists, just like the lack of our discovering flying pink elephants (which to me is no more unrealistic than the idea of god) is a strong suggestion that flying pink elephants do not exist. I choose not to take a neutral 'non-belief' position because, in all honesty, I firmly believe in god's non-existence. A more specific reason I disbelieve in god is because of my current understanding of spirituality, if such a thing indeed exists at all. The non-physical dimension, as my idealistic imagination tells me, is not run by a single dictator or king. I see it more as a shared wealth of knowledge and experience. Perhaps a single force or global consciousness is what keeps the wheels moving, but I dare not label it "god" for the fear of misrepresenting it as an intelligent bearded male who listens to our selfish prayers of health and good fortune. Those are my reasons for disbelieving in god. I have always been well aware of the possibility of god -- as well as the possibility of flying elephants. However, that possibility should not be placed at a 50% chance. ... Yet the only shred of evidence that can support the concept of god is a global mismash of subjective opinions.

Russell's teapot is something we have imagined, and likewise so is the concept of the God. We can give it any attributes we so choose: conceiver of all, omniscience, etc. Of course, Russell's teapot is an analogy with a specific role. It is not meant to prove that unlikely things don't exist, but rather, to show that the burden of proof lies on those who create the claim of existence. It need not be used in the context of gods. Of course it will; this is my point. It's unsuitable to bring forward such subjective "evidence" in a debate. Perhaps you misread? I specifically said that I try not submiss to these subjective feelings. I am not stating god is an impossibility. I am stating that it is highly unlikely, and that I have a very high degree of confidence that god does not exist. You are very welcome to be a pure agnostic, and never believe or disbelieve anything in your life for fear of being wrong. But I choose not to live like that -- I choose to take a stance rather than take none at all. However, as soon as you bring chance into the discussion, you are going to need to follow the rules of logic. To say that there is a 50% chance that pink flying elephants exist would be irrational and unacceptable without any evidence to support such a number. I disbelieve in gods for the same reason I disbelieve in the FSM, flying pink elephants and the Holy Undies. Disbelief does not require 100% denial of something, it's simply a stance I sit that explicitly says "I believe that god does not exist." My switch from weak atheism to strong atheism has been benefitial to my psyche. It makes me more confident in my beliefs, and more able to think about them in a clear, specific way.

Not at all. Atheists are not constantly thinking that there isn't a God, just like I'm not constantly thinking that there are not pink flying elephants. God's non-existence is not something that I need to constantly remind myself of. There's no more need to label atheism as a religion as there is to label policital thought, TV show preferences, etc. as a religion. Our lack of evidence of the non-existence of unicorns, pink elephants, the FSM and God is not a point of support for the existence of these things. If you make the claim that something exists, the burden of proof lies on you to support that claim. I have spent time looking into god, and I am still open to the idea. I follow science because it is more honest, more rational and more based on reality, rather than personal fantasy. Unlike with most religious beliefs, following science does not mean I must accept it blindly. Fortunately for my sanity, I do not personally test the larger scientific theories in this world. My shotty labwork would lead to radically untrue results. I would much rather put my faith in an entire community of those experienced in seeking the truth in an honest, logical and testable manner. With that said, I do not blindly follow science -- I am eager to question and challenge many of its conclusions. Again unlike most religions, those who set the scientific laws and theories are open to having them questioned and even changed altogether.

So if the embryo has not yet developed into a fetus, you are fine with killing it? :lol: A baby inside of the womb is not surviving on its own. It is depending on the mother, and therefore it is not subject to the same rights that those of us outside the womb are subject to. ;)

If somebody is truly split down the middle and neither believes in a god nor disbelieves in a god, then (depending on the usage of atheism) we would either call them a "pure agnostic" or a "weak atheist." They simply have no belief in god. And likewise, if you had prayed to the FSM, would it have been a reasonable rationale for believing it? What if you prayed to your underpants, and you survived? Would you then worship your underpants? Some may consider this evidence of the existence of God/FSM/Holy Underpants, but others would not. When I ask how loosely we are using the term evidence, I am asking whether we are using it in a subjective sense or an objective sense. To some, closing your eyes is evidence of the world disappearing, but this is not the sort of evidence that is suitable to bring to a debate. Of course, the chances are much higher than 0.00001% when we talk of cancer and prayer. And if the chances are that low, which is unheard of, almost every patient will die, regardless of whether or not they prayed and to whom. Many have felt God in a moment of absolute bliss and clarity while under the influence of psychedelic drugs, meditation and/or while out-of-body (such as a near-death experience). This is a common experience for those who experiment with such states. The feelings experienced are often felt in the same manner across cultures -- it is the interpretations of those experiences that vary widely. Atheists like myself can get the same strong feelings as you -- but we simply do not submiss to the brain's persuasion so easily.

How loosely are we using the term evidence? This is a one-way street. Say I make the claim that purple flying elephants with fuzzy tails existed on the planet before humans. Then, when asked what evidence I have to suggest/support such a claim, I respond with "There's no evidence that it can't be." Does my argument hold much weight? This logical fallacy is known as appeal to ignorance, or "burden of proof."

Nonreligion and atheism are very different concepts. You can be void of gods (ie. atheist) and still religious (take, for example, certain Buddhist sects). The burden of proof lies on you. Actually, the Greek prefix "a" means "without." So the term literally means "without theism." It is not a form of theism; it is a removal of theism. ;) You are misunderstanding agnosticism. Agnosticism deals with the lack of knowledge of god; it is not a 50/50 fence sitting. Some agnostics will believe in god, while others will not. One who accepts their own ignorance and makes no claim to the knowledge of god's existence is agnostic. Sorry to digress, but there is today a substantial amount of evidence to support psychic ability. I do not mean to come off as if I am making a claim to its existence, but I do not deny that the evidence exists to support it.

Absolutely fantastic concept. :D Perspective and structure seems fine, you just need to add some more light and dark shadows to really create a three-dimensional shape. Keep up the good work, your work inspires me to get back into digipainting. :lol:

"If there aren't any stupid questions, what do stupid people ask?" If the girl, on her own accord, claimed that the above quote refers to her group of friends, then she is the one who is doing the insulting, as she is accusing her friends of being stupid. ;) Sounds like there is are a few missing pieces to this story, though...

Great attention to ambient lighting, especially with the fireplace! The rest of the scene needs more dark and light shadows to boost the contrast. The perspective looks off in places (hammer, face, fireplace, barrels) and there is a lot of empty space that makes the sig look more "plain" than it really is. Awesome work, though! :thumbsup:

My hyperbole wasn't quite as evident as I had anticipated. I'm well aware that not every single teacher in the US will be forced to carry a firearm. :lol:

At what cost? Placing a gun in the hand of every teacher will greatly increase the availability of guns and, in turn, the number of school shootings that occur every year. It's pretty simple. The more abundant firearms become in America, the more readily available these firearms are to criminals, angry spouses, disgruntled students, etc. It would be foolish to think that introducing more firearms will solve the problem. :|

I consider myself a rather spiritual person, but I do not believe in the concept of God. As much as I feel there is a force that unifies everything in the universe, I dare not associate it with the term "God." To the West, "God" implies a supreme being that not only has high cognitive ability, but also the ability to affect those in the physical world. This unifying force that I believe in has no more control or cognitive ability than a man-made electrical generator. And so, prayer and worship would be futile. :-)

Here's the original story, which includes a higher quality and larger image: http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-ne ... rilla-pic/ I'm not convinced.

For years now I've been pretty sold on the idea of "ceasing to exist." Recently though, my curiosity has been caught by the phenomenon of near-death experiences (NDE). In particular, some academic studies, as well as a number of anecdotal reports, have documented near-death experiences in which the patients are conscious during clinical death (ie. flat EEG; no brain activity). This challenges the traditional understanding that consciousness is completely dependent on the brain.[1][2] More research is required before we can know for sure, but it definitely is an interesting topic. The experience itself (e.g. almost always a complete loss of fear of death) is fascinating! In any case, whether life after death involves something else entirely, or nothing at all, I'm willing to accept either fate with open arms. They both sound pretty good to me!

I sleep on my back; legs straight, hands on my chest, head slightly tilted to one side. It's really comfortable. :thumbsup:

I'm working as a camp counsellor at a camp for kids with special needs (ie. disabilities). One activity we did during pre-camp training was "Pitching a Tent," but with a twist. Two or more groups would compete to try and be the first to pitch their tent. However, each person in the group would be assigned a certain limitation. For example, one person may not be able to talk, another not able to see, another not able to use their arms, etc. (usually assigned based on their experience with pitching a tent). This activity forced everybody to work together, and it's also pretty fun. Only advice I can really give is to make everything spontaneous and fun. For example, even a game as tense as Rock, Paper, Scissors (which often has quite a substantial gain/loss) can be adapted to remove some tension. In our camp, we use full-body actions; e.g. rock is curling up into a ball, paper is standing up straight, and scissors is a star (like a jumping jack). Minor changes like these really help to make camp a more positive and fun experience. Having kids laugh and joke together is really important! In terms of camp-wide games, we recently played an adapted game of CTF, where those defending the flags could only tag by throwing wet sponges. Another good one is Armageddon, where each team has a fire that they need to defend. Attackers run with cups of water and try to put out the enemy fire. Good luck as a counsellor. I don't know about your camp, but working at a camp for kids with special needs is a really life-changing experience! Have fun, and face everything with a positive and spontaneous attitude, and I'm sure the team building activities will come naturally! Here's a good site for more ideas: http://www.ultimatecampresource.com/

The audience chants parts of the lyrics, probably something like: "Honey, honey, come and dance with me..." "... Every Day ..." "... all you need is love ..." Dave Matthews is great. I'd love to see one of his smaller shows. :D Hopefully he's still doin storytellers... EDIT: This is hilarious. :lol: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYqsz-THH0c (starts at 1:00)

Sounds like large-scale product placement. Imagine if the coffee shop in Friends had been a Starbucks... That would be a brilliant move by advertisers. :)

howlin0001; HIV/AIDS is not spread through saliva. And I don't think we are talking about open mouth french kissing. :lol: