Kristen said about 4 hours later

Neither.

I think there is already a trend in motion now with Christians of increasing acceptance of various sexual preferences. There is also the backlash, which tends to throw itself into the spotlight and mar the rest of the world's perception of Christianity. When more evidence comes to light showing that sexual orientation has biological roots, it will both increase tolerance in Christians and set off the zealots.

I can see the argument: Homosexuality is viewed as a defect, and if we can find a treatable defect such as this in a fetus, we should try to correct it. As if they had a heart defect.

The problem I have with this argument is that this "defect" has no bearing on the fetus's viability. We wouldn't reasonably expose a fetus to hormones or some form of surgery (or any other treatment that carries risks) to ensure that he/she would be blonde with no freckles right? That would be unethical. Treating them for sexual orientation is also unethical because it does nothing to increase survival rates. In fact, it would likely decrease it.

Here's a much safer way for Christians to avoid having homosexual children: Christians couples can have genetic testing done, just as they might to see what the risks are of the man and woman producing an albino child or one suffereing from Tay Sachs. If they find that they have a high probability of producing offspring that will be homosexual, then they can either choose to adopt or not to have children at all (through the Natural Family Planning Method, of course). The bible instructs couples to procreate, but then wouldn't it be wrong to knowingly create future homosexuals? Choose the lesser "evil", if you will.

Many Christians forget that claiming to be, identifying with, and/or feeling homosexual is not where the sin lies. It is when someone acts on homosexual urges that it becomes a sin (at least as the bible purports). So theoretically if a homosexual never acts on their desires then they don't sin. Remember that even if we find that homosexuality is biologically based, it still requires a CHOICE to act or restrain oneself. Hey, priests take a vow of celebacy, but we don't take away the choice by castrating them! A person can exist as both a homosexual and a fundamentalist Christian: they just can't participate in homosexual acts if they want to stay in good graces with their religion.

There's plenty of cleptomaniacs out there doing much more damage than homosexuals. I'm sure we could find some organic origins to that disease. So why aren't we trying to isolate that gene and correct it in the womb?

It amazes me that people find homosexuality so grotesque and vile and such a "problem", but adultery, theft, and abuse are hardly blinked at. I'd say adultery is much more detrimental to the institution of marriage, but what are Christians doing to eradicate this problem?

---

GJ said about 7 hours later

Well said, Kristen. I would argue that homosexuality is only a defect in the eyes of someone who believes we must procreate at all costs. If a test is developed that identifies the likelihood of having a gay child as being high, I don't have a problem if a couple decides not to have kids because of that. You know what, though--if a test is developed but can only be run on a fetus...it makes you wonder if the Christians will soften their stance on abortion. :)

---

Geoff said about 17 hours later

To play Devil adovocate...adultery, theft, and abuse are not biological "problems"...where as homosexuality is to some peoples eyes. Personally, I'd rather have a heterosexual child than a homosexual for a number of good reasons. One being the simple fact that procreation IS embedded in our DNA. We want to pass our legacy on to our children, and our children's children. I don't care what anybody says, human existence relies on natural procreation (for the time being)...and if we were all homosexuals, well the future of the human race wouldn't look so bright.

Now, not that I have a problem with homosexuals, in fact I had a friend in college who was one.

I would rather my child not be persecuted for his/her sexual orientation (they are going to have bad teeth, bad skin, and vertically challenged...thats plenty enough!). I would also want them to be able to have children of their own naturally. Would I still love them regardless of their orientation, of course.

So, what if I could do something about it before birth. Well to be honest, if there were little or no risk, I would have them "fix" the problem. While I don't think homosexuals are going to hell or anything like that, if I wanted a girl, I'd want her to be female and vice versa.

Whether that is politically correct or not, I don't care, just being honest.

---

Kristen said 1 day later

I'm glad to hear that you are tolerant, but you still call it a "problem" that could use an easy fix.
My hope is that in time less people will see it as a problem.

True, human existence relies on natural procreation for the most part. With an explosion of population growth over the past 2 centuries, I don't think we need to worry. And if it comes down to it, homosexuals can reproduce naturally. There probably wouldn't be so many if they couldn't. If the human race were at stake, I'm sure they would find a way to contribute.

I too would rather not have a child that is homosexual. I'd also rather not have a child that is from a minority group, or a child with a developmental disability or deformity. How selective are we going to be when we reproduce? You can get an amnio to try to test for some abnormalities, but they have a lot of false positives. It scares me to think of people going out of their way just to test for homosexuality, and the possible consequences. Imagine what will happen if the procedure doesn't work. Will people sue? Is there a way to prove that it even worked? I doubt it. What if there's a side effect? Could you live with yourself if you made your child infertile or blind or retarded, just trying to keep them from being gay?!

I can't think of many in utero treatments with little or no side effects...

---

Geoff said 1 day later

I don't know enough about utero treatments to make any quality statements about the reliability, but assuming these side effects didn't exist, I think the child selection process is going to grow. "Build your baby"...which I should trademark so I can market it in 30 years hahaha. Genetic engineering will continue to grow, and eventually tap into all kinds of great and scary things.

A good question I have for homosexuals is does a homosexual male see himself as a girl, or still a "guy" and vice versa. I'd be interested to see how they view themselves and also if they wish they could change.

One last thing...for those really flaming homosexuals (males...I don't see it in females), they really need to lay off, holy crap. They can be so annoying you want to slap them...or at least I do...but then again, I was always taught not to hit a girl.

---

GJ said 1 day later

Gays do not see themselves as inverted straights, Geoff. Some are girly, some are masculine. Funny, straight people are like that too.

As for the whole idea of procreation being burned into our genese...let's not forget that gays are quite capable of having sex in a way to build babies. :) However, in a world where there is an overabundance of babies, you can expect homosexuals to thrive, since their procreation is not needed for species survival.

---

Geoff said 1 day later

You show me a straight guy who can dress well, flail his arms around like girl, and speak 12 octaves higher, and I might believe your first statement. Unless they are purposefully hiding in the closet, many appear to me as women in men's clothing. Obviously there are exceptions to the rule.

All-in-all...I still consider myself tolerant of them, I just think it is strange because it is "different". My friend wasn't an outspoken flailing freak. He was fine to talk to and I enjoyed his company. The outspoken (thhhhhssssttoooopp) can drop off the planet for all I care. That is more of a personality trait than a sexual orientation though. What they do behind closed doors is their business. :)

---

GJ said 2 days later

My gosh, Geoff, you believe the stereotypes, don't you? You know more gays than you realize. You're only seeing the ones that meet your narrow stereotype.

I think you're confusing transvestites with gays. Transvestites are almost always hetero for some reason, but they like the opposite sex's clothing...a lot! They may indeed imagine themselves as the opposite sex.

So...I dunno if you're as tolerant as you believe yourself to be. Consider the following: would you care if your child's teacher was gay? Bus driver? Coach?

---

Kristen said 2 days later

You know what I always thought was kind of weird? Those "flamers" don't really act like women, in my opinion. At least I hope I don't talk and walk that way--and the wrist thing? Where did that come from? I'm tempted to say that maybe there are more than 2 genders...

I have another thought to put out there: Why is homosexuality so prevelant in prison? I can't help but wonder if sexuality, while based in genes (like your personality), is impacted by your environment. Not that I would know this, but I'm guessing that most of those behaviors in prison are linked with power struggles and humiliation.

---

GJ said 2 days later

Is it prevalent in prison? Can you point me to a study that shows this?

---

Geoff said 2 days later

I personally wouldn't care if my child's teacher was gay, so long as he/she was a good teacher. I've had gay professors at RIT and had no problem with them. A coach, yes I would have a problem. You wouldn't want your child changing in the opposite sex's presence would you? I wouldn't want my son changing in front of a gay man, just like I wouldn't want him changing in front of a female coach. Would you?

And yes, I do consider some stereotypes. I see what I see and hear what I hear, however misguided that may be. Unless I see proof otherwise, I am content with the way I think. There are exceptions to the case, but to be honest...if any of you found yourself in a bar surrounded by blacks...you couldn't tell me you wouldn't feel uncomfortable. I do hope that changes in time, but it won't change you or I...just our children's children. Oh and if you say it wouldn't bother you...you lie.

---

GJ said 2 days later

If I was in a bar "surrounded" by anyone I'd be concerned. However, what am I to assume will be different if they are black vs. asian vs. american indian vs. gay? I think you meant this: what if I was surrounded by a bunch of boyz from the hood?

Got news for you--they're just as likely to be asian or hispanic as black. It's not a race thing--it's an income disparity thing.

Try living in the South, dude...black population saturation is far higher than in the lily-white North. You see just how prejudiced you are when you're surrounded by middle-class blacks.

Now, changing in front of the opposite sex--nope, I don't have a problem with it. We're a nation of prudes, and that excuse doesn't wash for me.

Me, yeah, I'm guilty of stereotyping...usually do it to Christian and Muslim fundamentalists (i.e., they're all brainless sheep). However, I do what I can to keep it from influencing how I deal with individuals.

Let's go back to gays for a minute. Exceptions to the rule? How many gay people have you known? 3? 5? 10? How many do you think live in the New York alone? Are you familiar with statistics? It's hard to generalize with such a small initial population. Methinks you're using TV as your source of gay behavior. Not a good place to do your people research, imho.

---

Geoff said 2 days later

Right, the problem isn't with race, I know that, but we are judgemental people. I try not to judge people based on how they look, but if I show you a picture of a black, or white, or hispanic who looks from the hood, chances are by just seeing their picture, our brain automatically thinks criminal. Thats likely due to how and where we were raised. Eminem, being white but growing up in poverty, would probably see him as a struggling "brother" ...blah blah blah. But I digress, back to gays for a moment.

I haven't done any research on gays so I have no clue on the statistics, thus why I ask proof. I generalize gays because I don't know enough about them, same with blacks, hispanics, fat people, midgets, etc... Not something I'm particular proud of, but I still do it and I would agree many other people do as well. I draw from my experiences, which yes, does include television, but also where I went to school, where I grew up, etc... and there weren't too many gays, and the ones that were, were flamboyant or obviously "gay." So I just assume that is nature of most of them. Same assumptions for other people who aren't like me.

Quick jump back to the prude thing...you yourself may be comfortable changing in front of the other sex, but what about your children? You think they would be just as comfortable? You think there should be a coed bathroom? It's a touchy topic when you toss gay's in the picture you know? There are many people (especially young teens) who are self-conscious and I bet it would have some effect on them undressing in front of a gay counterpart. Running through their head, "why is he/she looking at me?" How do you know it is just a normal look like two straight males and not something else. If I knew a hideous girl was chasing after me, I surely wouldn't want to be forced to change in front of her. Same goes for a gay guys. And seeing as you've established gays are just like straight people, then this situation could very well happen. I'm just saying it's throwing new variables into the situation, I'm not saying we toss gays in concentration camps. I may have some German in me, but I haven't gone Nazi! Yeeeehaw.

---

GJ said 3 days later

Coed bathrooms! yea, now you're talkin'!!!!

Self-consciousness is taught---by the prudes.

---

Geoff said 3 days later

Who you calling a prude? :)

---

Kristen said 4 days later

If we start having co-ed bathrooms I ain't gonna share one with either of you, that's for sure!

---

Geoff said 4 days later

Prude!

---

GJ said 4 days later

Hahahaha

---

Steve said 12 days later

Damn, looks like I missed a good one. Burn 'em all, I tell you!!

---

Geoff said 12 days later

lol!

---

GJ said 13 days later

no worries, I'm sure to find some more to argue about. I seem to recall Steve and Geoff aren't too bad at this, either.

Geoff said about 1 hour later

It isn't a miracle, just because someone says it is. It is an anomaly for which science has yet to unravel. There is no proof. It all comes down to faith, which I have come to learn should be deemed "blissful ignorance." A 2000 year old book tells me miracles are real. Well, I'm sure there are a few other old books out there that tell you the world is flat, and that the Sun orbits the Earth, and obviously we have proven this false. However, until we can prove that miracles don't exist, they can exist.

WRONG, thanks for playing.

I remember watching 20/20 and they were talking about Heaven and if it exists. Near the end, they interviewed an Atheist and their point of view. One thing she said I really liked and I'll crudely paraphrase it for you.

"It is not our job to prove that God/Heaven do not exist. It would be like me asking you to believe that I saw a green man standing outside my door. Of course you wouldn't believe me, but until you can prove to me that he doesn't exist, then he could."

I like the simplicity of the analogy. Unless we have evidence that Johnny boy swooped down from heaven, snatched up that disease, and removed it from a nun (go figure), then why in the heck should we believe it? I think GJ has described the harmful consequences of this thinking quite well and I agree totally.

Let me be the first to say that science is not all perfect and knowing. It isn't always exact, and it does not have answers to every question. However it's essence is to seek the truth by observation and experimentation while being falsifiable. I can't say the same about Religion or some of the garbage that it reaps. If people could get that through their head, THAT would be the real miracle.

---

GJ said about 3 hours later

That's the point of science. It's not perfect, and cannot ever hope to be. It relies on self-correction, and change in our understanding of the world is built in. Change is a scary thing--it sometimes throws what we took as a given right out the window. That being said...it only does that with proof, not technobabble nor faith nor intimidation.

A good example of the self-correction of science. Back in the late 80s, Fleishmann and Pons announced to the world (note, to the world, not the scientific community--a sign of things to come, to be sure) that they had discovered cold fusion. People were estatic--fusion is a far safer and efficient form of nuclear energy, but it's damn near impossible to contain without super-high temperature fusion. What they were claiming was the ability to create a fusion reaction at near-room-temperature.

However, over the next several months, no one else was able to replicate their experiment. Inside of a year, cold fusion as a scientific concept was dead, but it lives on in the hopes of its proponents and the fringe elements of society who think Big Government killed it to preserve Big Oil. Did Fleischman and Pons really mean to fake this? Nope...but they strayed from the tried and true scientific method (you know, the one that says hypotheses need repeatable experiments validating their claims before they get theory status) in a rush to beat their rivals to the punch. Only trouble was, their experiment was flawed, but they wanted it so bad they began to believe in it. Once done, they were able to continue to do experiments that appeared (to them) to prove cold fusion. Unfortunately, it made them blind to the mistakes they were making...and thus the science community as a whole rejected their claim. They became outcasts when they continued making the claim and devising new ways to falsely prove it.

This belief shown by Fleischman and Pons is no different than the belief in anything else. When you convince yourself of a belief, you begin to filter how you see the world. Anything that supports your belief, no matter how wacky, you cling to. Anything that challenges your belief you rationalize and discard, no matter how convincing. Get deep enough into that belief, and it may well take a life-altering event to shake you out of it.

So where does this leave it? Do I think religion has a place in this world? I'll have another post in the coming days that outlines what I think in that regard. You just might be surprised at my conclusions. That is, if I don't decide to break up all this philosophy with a game review or some other less cerebral topic.

---

Steve said about 11 hours later

Boy oh boy, you guys need to take a step back and reconsider some of what religion does for us.

Let's leave the people involved in religion out of the picture for a second, and I'll talk about what religion means to me.

While I might not be a fully practicing Catholic, I do appreciate the years I spent in Catholic School, as well as everything I learned at church. Religion has taught me how to be a good person, and has helped guide me to what is right and wrong. Of course I'm generalizing here. I still have a free mind, and don't take every little thing the Catholic church preaches to be true, or right. I think it's stupid that they don't let women do the same things as men. I think it's stupid that they are against condoms and such.

I seriously beleive that the degredation in people's behaviors today over just 50 years ago is greatly related to the downfall of religion in this country. I'm flabbergasted by how poorly some people act around others. A lot of people. Take one example - how many times have you dealt with inconsiderate drivers? People sitting in the left lane. People driving inconsistent speeds. These people are only concerned with themselves on the road, and have no consideration for others. Ok, now think about how often you see people holding the door open for others. I've noticed that it seems to happen less and less often these days. How about the jerks that are not handicapped, but think it's ok to park in a handicapped parking spot because they are only going to be shopping for 10 minutes? I'm not saying these things didn't happen 50 years ago, but I bet they happened a lot less often. How about your neighbors? How many of them do you know? Do you do block parties? Do you see other areas doing block parties? Heck, growing up, we always used to have a couple partys in the middle of the circle, usually for 4th of July and Memorial Day. I used to love those days. Happen much anymore? Nope.

There's one great flaw about all religions - they are run by humans, and humans, no matter how good, make mistakes. So no religion is going to be perfect. Take what you can learn from religion, and be happy.

Sorry, I'm in a bit of a bad mood, as I just got home from work at 9:00 PM tonight, on a freaking Friday of all days, and I have to go to the assembly plant tomorrow (two hours away) to do a 20 minute evaluation. Grr.....

---

GJ said about 13 hours later

First off, you've made a totally unprovable assumption...that people today are far worse behaved than they were 50 years ago. Let me state first that one's behavior is dictated by culture, and different cultures have very different opinions on what good behavior is. Over the past 50 years, we've seen a huge shift in our culture to a much more varied melting pot--mostly because those of the lesser known cultures from the 50s and 60s now have far more buying power, and are thus far more visible to those of use in the middle class. Add to that the fact we live much closer together and run our lives at much faster speeds. Yep, the old customs will die hard. That doesn't make the new ones all bad--what's happening is we're feeling our way into the next mode of existence for humanity.

Next, you bring up the change in socialization that has taken place in society over the past 100 years. As we continue to get more populated (gee, another thing you can blame on religion) and more mobile, people have become more isolated. They don't all stay in the same hometowns they grew up in as kids, and they find that most people that live near them are in the same boat--they've relocated from somewhere. Still, the social parties do exist in some neighborhoods (like ours, not that we're socialites. hehe).

I am not saying that religion never did any good. However, it is ignorant to believe that religion does no harm. I'm of the belief that religion by and large today is more harmful than good--and has been for centuries.

A common argument theologists make about good deeds: that, without God, there would be no good deeds. Everybody would be all for themselves, and the world would be a terrible place. Guess what? The world IS a terrible place at any given time in any given location. But we, as a community of humans, try to improve our lot together, because we do far more as a unit than we can ever do alone. This alone gives us reason to offer comfort to others...it both helps the group, and builds reinforcement for that group-positive behavior. One of the reasons religions developed was to teach this concept...but it was a human construction, not a divine one.

However, over time, religion became an entity in and of itself. It declares itself the ultimate authority in all things, whether or not those things fly in the face of common sense or outright proof. It is this that makes religion so dangerous. It teaches our young to be sheep--to not think for themselves--to follow the crowd. Sheep are easily manipulated into doing evil things...and it happens again and again in history. Religion isn't the only example--Hitler used this same methodology to carry out his evil campaign.

So, what does religion do for me now? Nothing. My kids are good kids--and they're being taught to be good by their parents. I don't tell them they have God to answer for their sins--instead, they have their parents, their teachers, and eventually all of society to do that. I tell them--they can play by the rules of society, and work to change those rules they disagree with, but if they decide to abandon those rules, there will be consequences and they must be prepared to deal with them. Being a bad person isn't a rewarding choice in life--being a good one is. You don't need the promise of an afterlife to figure that out.

In the end--Mom and Dad taught us how to be good--the church didn't.

---

Geoff said about 23 hours later

Amen to that. I agree with what Steve has said about society, but I don't think it is a result of Religion, heck I'd blame the computer more so, not to mention women in the work place. These days, both parents are usually working to be able to survive, and most barely have enough time to take care of the kids, let alone throw a block party. I would hedge a bet that many of these parties were organized by women. With more women in the workplace, they have less time to do this stuff. Perhaps this also impacts our "ownership" of the road. We're all in a hurry now a days.

---

Steve said 1 day later

Sorry if I mislead about something - I don't think that religion does not harm either. Just one look at the extremists shows that. As I said, religion is not perfect. Take what you like from it, and discard the rest. I agree Mom and Dad taught us good morals, but they used religion to help them do so.

Geoff, I'd be careful about blaming women for the degredation in society. Who says women have to be the homemakers? Can't men? Does anyone have to stay at home with the kids once they are in school? The problem I see is when Moms and Dads both work lots of hours, either because they want more money, or they are forced to because of their job. Well, it's up to the parents to choose. Find a new job, accept less money, or choose work over their children.

That said, I hope that if and when I do get married and have kids, that my wife would want to stay home with the children, at least until they are in school. If she is not willing, then I would want to. I don't know much about raising kids, but I think that a lot of their development happens at an early age, and I want either myself or my wife to guide them, not a nanny. Once they are in school, it's much easier, assuming you don't work a lot of hours.

So um, perhaps we have two topics we should ban from discussion now - abortion and religion. I'm going to stay out of future ones, becuase there's no sense in going back and forth about the same stuff over and over again. We all live our lives the way we want to, and arguing on this blog isn't going to change that.

---

GJ said 1 day later

Aw, but it's so much fun! :)

---

Marc said 1 day later

I think it's interesting we're discussing the changes religion and computers have had on our society in these comments, because I think one of the reasons religion is getting a bad rep. is in help due to computers.

First off, it's nice that computers, or more broadly mass communication, are giving us the ability to see the faults in everything, including religion. The whole priest scandal in the Catholic church has helped to cause some changes, or at least is on its way to.

On the other hand, it's also inaccurately pigeonholing it. Yes, there's a lot of sick priests out there, but there's way more decent ones. I think if any of you have taken psychology, you'll remember that humans tend to remember drastically bad things rather then drastically good things. Just think about the news you see at night, what types of stories take up most of the time? Murders, wars, corruption. Oh, then the small story on local charity group tossed in there, but I'm sure that won't be talked about tomorrow.

I think we're seeing good and bad changes, obviously. It's good that we're able to realize faults in all parts of society, so we can hopefully fix them, but at the same time, like Steve said, I think we're beginning to forget the good things. As much as you may not want to hear it, I think religion, or reflection for the agnostic, helps to remember the good or be thankful for it.

As for John Paul being a saint, I could care less...so could he. He did some good, I'm sure he's done bad. Sainthood is basically like knighthood in my mind, it's simply a recognition.

---

Geoff said 1 day later

uh oh Marc, get ready for GJ's wrath!

You do bring up a good point that "sex sells." We don't hear about the nice things that religion provides, the charity to the poor, confirmation students visiting the local elderly center, etc... These are all very good things that religious groups provide to society. I'm not quite as anti-religion as GJ projects himself to be (whether he is or isn't is not my call), so I think Religion can be a very good thing for some people. Coming back to Miracles for a moment, I think what tickles many athiests are the outrageous statements they would have you believe. This miracle story is one example. So is the Cold Fusion example GJ provided for science.

The difference is how we are able to question these statements in science. Religion, um not so much. Sure Catholics these days don't strictly adhere to the rules as much as they used to (not by the pope's choice), but look at the middle east. This is where religious beliefs have gone bad....way bad. I think calling these followers sheep would be a compliment. Instances like these make me personally werey of some religions (and governments). Personally, if someone believes in one god or many, I don't care. Believe what you want to, but you should be able to think for yourself without persecution. This goes for Religion, Government, Science, and Families too (except children under 18, they must obey thy father and mother :) Heck, I believe in aliens, and I have no proof of their existence! (bring it GJ hahaha)

I think what it comes down to, for me anyway, is "carpe diem" baby! If you want to spend your Sundays worshiping, go for it, me, I'd rather hang some drywall or wash my car. I spent my early childhood days looking for miracles, but now, I make miracles happen everyday (just look at the new blog design, its a beauty! LOL).

---

GJ said 2 days later

GJ's wrath, that's funny.

OK, let's stop assuming that I cannot see the good that religious organizations do, or that I am not recognizing the fact that on the whole, secular organizations are nowhere near as involved as religious ones in helping the poor and sick. I'm well aware of that, and that is a very important role to fill. You will notice that I do not attack those activities of the churches.

What I do attack is the belief in falsehoods, because of the pain, suffering, ignorance and tragedy it leads to. We don't even need to look overseas at Muslim religious terrorists to see the effects--try looking right here in the US. Sometimes it's violence: anti-gay and anti-abortion violence is solely fueled by religious fervor. Sometimes it's mind control: think Scientology and other cult-like followings. More often, it's suppression of facts to ensure no challenges to a religion's view of the world: think evolution, reproduction and population science.

These falsehoods, and the work that goes into maintaining them, is what turns the majority of Americans into easily malleable sheep. I'm not accusing any of you of this, but how many people do you know, on both the conservative and liberal ends of the spectrum, who vote and act the way they do because of what they're told by the talking heads of their political parties, churches, and other sources of influence? I don't know about you--but I see tons of them. They scare me to death.

---

Marc said 2 days later

I agree GJ, I hope I didn't seem like I was attacking anyone for not seeing the good that can come of religion, I actually was going for more the society as a whole disregarding its benefits. I wholeheartedly agree there's plenty of bad that comes of it as well.

Here comes my typical you should really check out Rush comment. Apparently, the next album (due out May 1st!) is focused very heavily on this very subject. Heck, even one of the album artworks shows a baby in a baby carriage, being struck by lightning, with good weather on one side and stormy on the other. Neil, the lyricist, even says that his influences came from the spoon feeding people are receiving of their believes and how both good and bad come from it. Obviously I can't tell you how well thought out the lyrics will be, but if you can get past Geddy's voice, you may actually appreciate their lyrics for once GJ. :)

---

GJ said 2 days later

I think this is just a sneaky way to get me to listen to Rush!!!

---

Marc said 2 days later

Will it work?

---

Geoff said 2 days later

When it comes to Rush, we are religious fanatics and will do anything to convert you.....baaaaahhh!

---

GJ said 2 days later

Nope. My CD players are Rush-proof.

---

Geoff said 2 days later

Ah, but what about your mp3 player? There's our exhaust port, Marc, let's get him!

---

Marc said 2 days later

Maybe I'll throw a midi in the background on the blog so he can't get away from it. :)

---

Geoff said 2 days later

Excellent, perhaps a few songs can cycle, with the final song being "One Little Victory"

;)

---

GJ said 3 days later

a midi...on the blog? die, infidels!

---

Eric said 4 days later

This post sure transformed. I bet I can change that - RELIGION IS GREAT. Blue Cross/Blue Shield should be a saint!

---

Geoff said 4 days later

lol!

---

GJ said 4 days later

You'll find discussions always get lively here...and often go all over the place. Kind of like home. And Rush still sucks.

---

Geoff said 4 days later

That's it...Marc, time to launch the Midi's...in fact, do an if statement on GJ's login so it only plays for him, and make sure he is unable to disable the music :)

---

GJ said 5 days later

Where'd I put my hit man directory?

GJ said about 3 hours later

Just so we're clear, this isn't GJ-based propaganda. It's just funny as hell (no pun intended) humor about what God just might be like, we being unable to comprehend the mystery of God and all. They are putting out new videos about every 2-3 weeks. Let me know if you'd like to see more of them...they're up to episode 10 now (this is episode 1).

---

Marc said 2 days later

These were pretty good, did you know that if you just watch the video and let it sit, they play the next one?

---

GJ said 2 days later

No--must be a feature of grouper. That's pretty cool. For those of you who aren't sure what you're getting in to...just wait until you meet Jesus and Lucifer. :)

---

Geoff said 3 days later

Jesus, who?

---

GJ said 3 days later

Oh, and Marc--I only got episdodes 1 and 2 to show up in this window...so I'll probably just post the other episodes as new posts if there is some interest outside of the geek squad.

---

Marc said 3 days later

I'd be interested in seeing more, regardless of being religion based, it's meant to be humorous, or at least so far, so why not? And when did we begin censoring this blog anyway?

---

GJ said 3 days later

It's not censoring...it's "shall I bother to go to the trouble?" :)

---

Marc said 3 days later

Oh, well than that's a matter of how bored you are at work. :)

---

Marc said 4 days later

Good news, if you click on the Playlist button, you can watch the other videos, the Lucifer one was great.

Geoff said 4 minutes later

I think the intriguing part of this the stunning number of Atheists in Europe. I had no idea there were that non-believers over there. Also, this isn't a ploy to take potshots at the believers, I thought it had some nice defense views for believers....however misguided they are. (OK, that was a potshot lol!)

---

Steve said about 2 hours later

Well, don't believe everything you see on TV. God knows where a lot of these "numbers" come from. Hehehe. God knows... Sorry. Typed it first, reread it, and laughed.

As Bill says, when science proves how everything was started, fine, I'll sign up. But for now, religion, in *most* cases, serves the greater good.

---

GJ said about 4 hours later

Stats? Here you go. Bill was a moron as usual during this interview, but Dawkins handled himself pretty well. The old canard "the worst mass murderers of the world are athiests" was raised, which of course is used to try to explain how atheists have no moral compass and will do anything they please. For some dumb reason, lots of people believe this, when in truth this is really the hallmark of anarchists. That being said, the dictators mentioned were NOT anarchists, but their lack of a moral compass had more to do with their power mad desires and paranoia than atheism.

As for when science proves how everything started....well, first of all, proofs are for mathematicians. Science makes no proofs, it only makes hypotheses that are then tested. Should they pass muster, they are then considered the standard...i.e., a law, but even then they are subject to change should future evidence point to a different solution. So, we today have hypotheses about how the world came about, and how people came about, but they are still pretty rough since it all happened a looooong time ago (not 6,000 years ago, you dang new-earth creationists). This freaks out the religious folk, so they try to keep the kids from learning about this evolution science and astronomy science (they were big into suppressing the Big Bang not so long ago) in order to preserve their house of cards they call a belief system.

Religion can certainly provide a moderating influence in the world. However, it has no place in politics, no place in our system of laws, and no place in our schools.

GJ said 15 minutes later

There is a slight problem with this nightmare scenario for atheists. See, culinary bananas (which is what he is describing above) don't have seeds. Non-culinary bananas are not very similar to this easy to eat variety, and lack most of the "design features" quoted in the video.

Why don't they have seeds, you ask? Very good question. Culinary bananas don't have seeds because they are genetic manipulated breed, much like donkeys. Culinary bananas were invented...by man. They propagate only with man's help. Sorry, James. God didn't design the banana. Man did. You couldn't have picked a dumber proof of God's existence.

He's going on this TV show to debate two atheists. They're going to rip him to shreds, especially if he uses the banana proof. There is no way to prove the existence of God, period. It's a faith thing, through and through.

So...this isn't a dig on belief in God. It's a dig on two fundamentally stupid fundamentalists. Need I remind you that our elected president is one as well.

---

GJ said 22 minutes later

Mistakenly referred to Ray Comfort as James in the above comment. Comment editing doesn't work yet.

---

Darcy said about 1 hour later

And it is Kirk Cameron you doofus!

Comfort's arguments made my brain hurt.

---

Marc said about 2 hours later

Atheist or not, this guy's argument reminds me of anything having to do with Mega Churches, and all of them are nuts. I was actually waiting for Comfort to put his hand on Cameron's head and heal him, then Cameron would fall to the floor. At least then it could have been tagged "funny."

---

Geoff said about 3 hours later

I would have loved to have seen that!

Ray's banana proof would have been better served if he tried to disprove Darwin's theory of evolution to help prove God: If Darwin's "Survival of the fittest" was true, then the banana wouldn't lend itself to be so easily eaten by humans and apes. Thus, Darwin is full of crap and God creates to serve man (oh and apes too!).

I think that would have been a better approach. His intelligence rating would have gone up to say...the critters under a rock, rather than the rock itself. Oh well, at least we got to see Kirky give us his warm, dumb smile. I think I might go have a human harvested Dole banana, I hear those God branded ones don't shape up.

---

GJ said about 22 hours later

Darwin's theory isn't "survival of the fittest." You've been listening to the creationists too much. ;) Part of the the strategy of those who oppose evolution is to paint it as something it's not. See this great PDF, it's a great introduction into all thing evolution. I promise, it won't make your brain hurt nearly so much as that Ray Comfort video.

---

GJ said about 22 hours later

Btw, disproving evolution is not going to prove God. If we find a new mechanism to describe how humans came about, and we truly do find that it replaced what we though of a evolution, I can guarantee it won't be any more palatable to those to hate evolution so. If anything, they'll hate it more--as it will further reduce the mystery of God.

---

Geoff said 1 day later

Your right, disproving evolution doesn't prove God, however I think it is a better tactic than saying, "a banana fits in my hand, therefor God exists." Remember, I was trying to think on Ray's brain frequency. It is difficult, I know, but perhaps you need to eat a few more bananas and then you shall see the light. I mean, what was this Darwin guy thinking?!?

...I funny....don't hurt me.

---

Abby said 1 day later

*laughs*

Funny. xD

Just because bananas are quite convenient doesn't prove anything.

(and I finished another book after buying it in the same day)

---

GJ said 2 days later

Oh, one more thing. Most religious folks, even fundamentalists, are not as dumb as these two. However, they are going onto national television debating those folks behind The Blasphemy Challenge, some fairly smart atheists who go by the handle "The Rational Responders." In a live, open debate, they'd eat Ray for breakfast. However, he may have worked a deal with the network to get editing rights on the debate, so what shows up on TV might not reflect what really was debated. We'll see, as the Rational Responders will likely post the whole thing on their site after the broadcast. It'll be interesting to compare and see what the network filtered. They do have a financial incentive to not alienate their religious viewers.

---

Geoff said 2 days later

I'm glad you brought up "The Blasphemy Challenge." I've been looking for this scripture, Mark 3:29, which talks about the unforgivable sin. The wacky priest at Bishop Ludden told us about this once (didn't mention it was in the bible though)...and I just assumed he was a moron, but it is actually written in the bible. How funny is that!

So I guess the all powerful one will forgive us for everything....oh, except if I spit on the Holy Spirit. I can crucify Jesus, deny God the father and still repent, but you better not mess with old Holy one, or else you get the boot!

Do Christians even know about this? I'm surprised it wasn't eradicated from the bible as it pretty much contradicts the foundation of Christianity.

---

GJ said 2 days later

The Blasphemy Challenge was funny, but totally immature, too. It did serve to reveal the idiocy of that particular part of faith, and what was more interesting was the panicked responses of some well-meaning folks who were sure these challenge participants had just damned themselves to hell.

Oh, another update on Ray--here's his new proof:

When you see a painting, you know there was a painter.
When you see a building, you know there was a builder.
So then creation is proof of a creator.

Duh. The logic is simply mind-blowing.

---

Geoff said 3 days later

wow....I'm a believer.

GJ said about 18 hours later

Sure, I'll watch it at 11:30pm. Haha. Right. I fell asleep on the couch at 10:30. I'm turning into an old man rather quickly. Guess I'll catch it at the NightLine site today. Anyone else catch it?

---

GJ said about 18 hours later

Comment deleted on 5/10/2007 at 7:48AM

---

Geoff said about 21 hours later

I saw it...it blew. They spent more time giving backgrounds of both sides than the actual debate. Not surprisingly, they made the Atheists look like jerks and Kirk and Ray look like Angels. They clipped pieces of footage (which I saw in full prior to watching Nightline's version) which clearly favored the Atheist point of view, and turned it against them.

And then, at the end they had nerve to say, well, who won the debate? Not sure....not sure?!? Give me a break, here is Rays scientific proof, a painting has a painter, therefor creation has a creator, and God is that creator. The Atheist response, well who created God then? Oh, God has always existed, ok, well if God can always exist, why cant the universe...NO RESPONSE from Kirk or Ray...they refused to respond. That right there sums up who won. After that, it leaped out of the scientific realm and jumped back into the Bible and left rationality at the door.

So, yes, Atheist's won, no contest. Did they say some stupid things, sure did, but against those two idiots, can you blame them? Kirk Cameron tried to disprove the Theory of Evolution by holding up pictures of fake animals drawn by a graphic artist, like the "crockaduck" (part crock, part duck), and a bull frog (frog with bull horns). I still would like to see the whole debate in full, but clearly, Ray and Kirk did not scientifically prove anything, other than their lack of rational intelligence.

---

GJ said about 23 hours later

Yeah, unfortunately, I have seen a lot of comments backing up the hack job Nightline did on this debate. It was clear that they were simply thrilled with having to talk about Kirk Cameron (they largely ignored Ray Comfort), and portrayed a very slanted view of the exercise.

So far, the Way of the Master folks have supposedly put up the debate in its entirety on you tube. Not. The debate was 90 minutes long, but their videos are far shorter. Read: another hack job. Meanwhile, the RRS has a very small clip on their site, which also doesn't really give you a good glimpse of the debate, either. If this is all they plan to release--then they've done an equally dumb hack job of the debate.

Still waiting to find the full debate somewhere on the net. I heard it's a hoot.

---

GJ said about 24 hours later

Oh boy...it appears that Kirk used Pascal's Wager as his rebuttal to the atheist's arguments. For those of you not familiar with it, Pascal's Wager says this:

Let us consider the paraphrased translation of Pascal. "God either exists or He doesn't. Based on the testimony, both general revelation (nature) and special revelation (Scriptures/Bible), it is safe to assume that God does in fact exist. It is abundantly fair to conceive, that there is at least 50% chance that the Christian Creator God does in fact exist. Therefore, since we stand to gain eternity, and thus infinity, the wise and safe choice is to live as though God does exist. If we are right, we gain everything, and lose nothing. If we are wrong, we lose nothing and gain nothing. Therefore, based on simple mathematics, only the fool would choose to live a Godless life." Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have nothing to lose. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.

Do you see the problem here? First--he assumes that the existence of the Christian God is 50%. He is basing that on what? Certainly not science.

Then, in order to win this wager, you must live according to God's laws. Wait--who made God's laws, if God doesn't exist? Man did. Maybe those laws aren't so good for us? Sure, some of them are...but, if you know of the Inquisition, you know that certainly some are not. So, there is a cost for belief in God--you are willing to follow what could well be a false god, a construct of Man, in the vain hope of living forever. Hmmm.

And if you lose the wager...egads, what will God do to someone who has worked to discourage belief in God? Well, if you talk with those who are betting conservatively on this wager, why, we'll burn in hellfire for eternity.

And that's the crux of this wager for me. If God is so petty and arbitrary, then I'll take hellfire hands down. But see, I'm betting that God only seems so because God is a creation of Man...and yes, Man is that petty.

---

Geoff said 1 day later

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=3148940&page=1

Here is the whole thing, it is the video in the upper right. It is an interesting debate.

GJ said about 19 hours later

Nobody picked on me for misspelling Intelligent? It was spelled Inteeligent for the better part of a day. Irony, anyone?

---

Geoff said about 21 hours later

I carn't spell eether, must be a charecteristick of smart peeple

---

GJ said 1 day later

Yeah, but I read more than the occasional DVD insert. :)

---

Geoff said 2 days later

I'll have you know that some of those inserts are fairly lengthy. My lord of the rings trilogy was probably 4 or 5 pages....that's almost a whole prologue! I also read RUSH lyrics...that has to count for something (ok I set you up for it)

---

GJ said 2 days later

Rush lyrics? You mean like, "Goo goo, gaa gaa?"

---

Geoff said 4 days later

For the intellectually challenged, yes.

---

GJ said 6 days later

So that's Rush's audience! No wonder I've never figured out why they're so popular with the lobotomy crowd before.

Marc said 6 minutes later

Comment deleted on 6/20/2007 at 10:31AM

---

Marc said 8 minutes later

4. Thou shalt use your blinker whenever changing lanes or *gasp* turning. (This commandment is not for just the North, people in the South must follow it as well).

5. Thou shalt use the correct blinker depending on which direction you are changing lanes or turning. (This commandment is just for the South).

---

GJ said about 1 hour later

6. Thou shalt keep your emissions in shape on your car, thus not subjecting the rest of us with your sulfur smelling exhaust.

---

Geoff said about 4 hours later

7. Thou shalt not pollute the air with obscene rap music, or worse, country.

8. If one must blast thy music, only bands that start with "r" and end in "ush" may be played.

---

GJ said about 5 hours later

I didn't know Roush Racing started a band.

---

Geoff said about 5 hours later

Yeah, I hear their new hit single is called "Spark Plug"

---

Steve said about 8 hours later

9. Though shalt remain in the right most lane unless passing a slower moving car.

10. Though shalt complete a pass of one car in 30 seconds or less.

11. Though shalt not pull out in front of faster moving traffic to allow another driver to merge onto the highway.

12. Though shalt turn off turn signal after completeing lane change or turn.

13. Though shalt turn on headlights during rain storms, as well as within +/- 4 hours of sunrise/sundown.

14. Though shalt not use a cell phone, hands free device, navigation system, read a book, paper, or be significantly distracted in any other manner while driving.

Amendment to #2 - Though shalt only brake hard when seeing a police vehicle if though are travelling at an obscene speed. Though shalt use the brake pedal to flash brake lights when a cop is spotted, to warn other motorists to slow down a touch.

---

Kristen said about 10 hours later

Amendment to #7 - Thou shall only blast country music if thou is traveling south of the Mason Dixon line, or anywhere in the Central Time Zone.

15. Thou shalt not paint one's own car, unless one is a professional. Camouflage is strickly forbidden.

---

GJ said about 22 hours later

Does #14 mean I should stop with the donuts while driving? It's my trick to avoid speeding tickets--I look like a undercover cop.

---

Abby said 1 day later

16. Thou shalt not run over the middle schoolers at the bus stop.

It's nearly happened to me how many times now? :\

---

GJ said 1 day later

17. Pedestrians shall remember that the road belongs to the cars. :)

---

Abby said 2 days later

18. Cars shall remember that us middle schoolers aren't allowed on the grass because it's private property of a high schooler.

Ha.

---

Kristen said 2 days later

You tell em Abby!

---

Abby said 3 days later

Wahaha. Fear me and my army of spiders.

---

GJ said 4 days later

I'm going to make you watch Kingdom of Spiders....see how much you like your spider army then. :)

---

Abby said 5 days later

What the heck is that?

---

GJ said 7 days later

Go to imdb.com and look up the movie. The main star is the dude you see in all those PriceLine.com commercials--you know, the fat obnoxious guy? It's a classic monster movie...and this one has hordes of spiders. After watching it, you probably won't like spiders much anymore. :)

---

Abby said 7 days later

Yeah right.

Steve said 16 minutes later

I'll draw a conclusion - the reason for the higher percentage of non-religious doctors working with the poor is because a higher percentage of them (versus religous doctors) have had trouble with the law, and are serving out their community service sentances by practicing medicine with the underfunded.

---

GJ said about 4 hours later

Ah, that old canard....those that don't believe in God have no morals. In fact, I've had a hell of a time unlearning mine...I should be able to start murdering people in cold blood any day now!

---

Marc said about 5 hours later

I guess it's just as bad as saying those that are religious must have good morals or do good acts and that they represent everyone who follows that religion.

---

Steve said about 5 hours later

Oh, sorry, I forgot to add - this is all true, "trust me."

I just thought I'd try pulling stuff out of my arse for once.

---

GJ said about 7 hours later

Ya gotta be flexible...there be all kinds of orifices to pull crap out of, if you're creative!

---

Steve said about 7 hours later

Just consider me a "GJ in training..."

---

GJ said about 14 hours later

or was that an "anti-GJ?" :)

---

Geoff said about 16 hours later

The only conclusion I drew is that it sucks to be poor!

---

Marc said about 17 hours later

Haha, always thinking outside the box Geoff...I guess that's why you're the designer in the family.

---

Geoff said about 17 hours later

Yeah, I was abducted by the Walpole street lamp when I was a kid, what can I say?