fauxlaw

On its face, the statement is equitable. However, the proof of a negative is a flawed logic. On that basis, alone, arguing for the existence of God is advantaged.

thank you

thank you

Seeing as how "God" is a title, and not a name, who knows? Just as "Allah" is a title, not a name. Or "Christ" is a title, not a name.

I concur with both posts. Seems to me, Congress, in some respects, and as stated by some members, too many to mention, seem to believe this matter of oversight [a non-existent term in the Constitution, yet the concept surely has relevance] is an exclusive tool of Congress, ignoring that both other branches also have oversight of Congress. 

Really? And Christians had nothing to do with the Crusades, did they? Come on, the list of religions causing havoc with one another would fill a bible. And that's Muslims. Have a care to at least use a proper description, Your bias slip is showing, sweetie.

Morality? Which one? There are as many expressions of morality among humans than there are climates.

7.5 humans? Is there a multiplier missing? A 'B' I'm guessing. Sure, but every living organism on earth, plant and animal, is affecting our earth, yeah? Like the organisms in rice paddy fields, and natural wetlands, rivers, lakes, and oceans contributing more methane gas into the atmosphere than cows. So, should we eliminate rice, as is asked of cows? You think vegans might be as upset as those of us who happen to like our steaks? So, let's tome down just a bit on the anthropogenic effect, yeah? There's more of a lot of other living organisms of Darwin's "one form, or many" than Homo sapiens.

Didn't get it, yet. Read to the end. The very end.

Greyparrot's explanation above clearly answers your question, but you must do more than skim the paragraphs, as most people today tend to "read." READ it. Read it again, if necessary. Yes, legal discussion is often enough to bore one to tears. Get over it. Read.

Joe Biden, Professor, MIT, in still another gaffe on profession, 2/24/2020 at the "First in the South Dinner" “You’re the ones who sent Barack Obama the presidency. And I have a simple proposition here: I’m here to ask you for your help. Where I come from, you don’t go very far unless you ask. My name’s Joe Biden. I’m a Democratic candidate for the United States Senate,”

I completely agree

I will add, coincidentally, that the Qur'an begins with the book, The Cow, and the first verse declares, "This book is not to be doubted." I suppose there's a purpose in one popular cow remarking, "Eat mor chikin"

A superb point made by the video, and I agree entirely with the presenter, peace be upon him. In fact, it is my belief that the animals of the field, the fish of the sea, the fowl of the air, even the creepers on ground, are living the full measure of their creation in utter obedience, while we, man, can only hope to achieve that status someday. They inherit, by their very existence, the kingdom of God. It is we who are tasked with trying, and many will, and have failed. To whom much is given, much is expected.

"What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason, how infinite in faculty! In form and moving how express and admirable! In action how like an angel, in apprehension how like a god! The beauty of the world. The paragon of animals. And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me." [Shakespeare, Hamlet, II, ii] 

We have been given the world to tend. How are we doing?

Yes, I am, and am a descendant of Brigham Young through my paternal grandmother; his last surviving granddaughter, who died at 107. No, I have one wife, and she is quite enough! Really, love her to death after 46 years, but, I don't have a clue how Brigham managed 27. Really, most of them did not live in the same house, but, still...

And, yes, I have had those charges made to my face by other Christians, but I don't begrudge anyone who hurls slurs out of ignorance of what I know and believe. Thanks for thinking I'm lesser than other evils. That's a start of a potential good friendship. 

Yeah, he said that. Yeah, a jerk, but a few of us knew that going in. However, since he chaired the meeting [not the original intent since he was merely invited to attend], beyond my charge that he may have been the cause of our discontent, I said nothing more, and prayed myself.

Understood as they stand, no, atheists probably will not make the attempt. But, the formula works if applied, even by atheists. If they can express no faith but in themselves, that's a start. It is a personal commitment each must make; no one can or should do it for them.

My pleasure. It is not an easy read, and it certainly challenges one to dig deep for understanding, not to mention the frustration of using unfamiliar languages in chapter headings, let alone i the text, but... now you know why it's my favorite novel.

I am not offended by the sincere prayer offered by anyone of any faith, for they all attempt to reach divinity, by whatever name we give that Entity, in supplication and gratitude. The exercise of faith is not bordered by names, titles, and devotees of religion. That some people, regardless or their access to religious institutions, are more faithful than others, is not to be questioned. But I contend that God does not measure a person's faith, and accept or reject a prayer on that basis. Nor should we.

What page, verse, word, did God write of the Bible? Or of any other holy writ, even outside of the Abrahamic religions [Judaism, Christianity, Islam]?

That these works are inspired, even directly revealed from God, is my contention, but they are still written by fallible men. Worse, all have been subjected to transliteration and translation, and not always by well-intended fallible men, but by corrupt, ill-meaning fallible men, and we do not have, at least in any instance of the Abrahamic religions, original texts from which to correct what we have, now. 

However, I also contend that we have the power to discern what is and is not true by an exercise of faith, a sincere desire to know, without doubt, and without cynicism, by study and reflection, then ask God.

Oh? A prayer is offered from the well of both the House and Senate every day those bodies are in session.

That was exactly my point. Individuals can make or break a monumental exercise. This one was adequately broken, after 5 months of theatrics [if you really think about it, it was 48 months - from the very hour of Trump's inauguration], by 30 seconds of keystone cops. Hollowood, all the way.

And then, as we continue to increase the mean life expectancy, what then? Such limits ought to be tempered by individual cases., and, therefore, not made constitutional absolutes. For example, both Biden and Trump are in excess of 70 [78 and 73, respectively, I think]. However, I don't think it takes much reflection to observe that Trump, on any given day, appears more alert, on point, and certain of himself, than does Biden. In fact, a 70-year-old [happens to be my age] may demonstrate greater qualities of characteristics such as this subject of capability to manage a presidency, than some 50-year-olds. It's relative to the individual, isn't it?

Granted. But why, then, are climate-dazed activists so certain that that the ocean's rise of x-mm is always a bad consequence? Or that the rise of temperature by 0.x C is always a bad consequence? Or that the relative level of methane in the atmosphere is always a bad consequence? How do we know that the scope we define as acceptable parameters are truly the hard limits we must maintain, or we are doomed? I contend that we do not yet know enough about climate to access all the variables that create climate and conclude that we are at critical mass stage. The science is not "in." If astronomy is not "in," and it makes no such claim, and its been around a lot longer than climate science, then climate science is not either.

No, mere statements about rights are subjective. We describe them in terms of our perspective of them. Rights, as merely described, such as by the Constitution, exist as qualia. As they exist in that format, described, but not used, they remain mere subjective ideas, but that is not why rights exist, is it? Like the emotion, love, [another quale, as all emotions are] it exists as an abstract until it is used. Rights, taken from their abstract qualia form by use, become quanta, and, therefore measurable.

It is the same with all tools the consciousness of man has devised. For example, a door. A door, when closed, and, therefore not used as its intent is to allow passage from one space to another, may be described as a wall. It serves all functions of a wall. A door is useful only when open, effectively creating a void through which one may pass. Therefore, we make use of what isn't [a void created by an open door] to use what is; the space it divides when a "wall."

The pointy is, the open door is measurable. How open is it, by a function of movement through an arc?

Because the Constitution says otherwise by omission. 200 suggested amendments per 2-year congressional session, 116 sessions - you do the math. 27 amendments passed and ratified in 230 years. Not as easy as rolling on a log.

Nope, just a voter.

Yes, I know. But, when I lived in Boulder, CO, once upon a time, I was on an adjutant city government committee. Meeting with the Mayor on one occasion, I mentioned a short prayer would be appropriate as we were trying to tackle a thorny issue with lots of contention. I though a calming spirit could prevail. The Mayor told me to shove it up my arse. I told him he was a bitter old man [he was younger than me] and perhaps the source of our contention. He was.

Rights are not measurable? Wow, do I pity your existence. As Richard Bach once said [Confessions of a Reluctant Messiah], "Argue for your limitations; they're yours." What stops is from a continual path of gaining knowledge and the ability to measure that which only seems infinite? See your mirror. That guy is your nemesis.

In the First Amendment, the religion gig is followed directly by freedom of speech, and we manage to understand that one very well, unless we're talking about religion. After telling us we essentially have liberty to say whatever we damn well please, accepting all consequence of such speech, as is prudent, we interpret by back-up and say, arbitrarily, and incorrectly, that our freedom of speech is curtailed in the public practice of religion - any religion. Prayer, in public is taboo. We argue over symbols; a concrete speech, if you will. The two interpretations combat one another, don't they? Do you think that is what Madison had in mind?

There is a mastery to be had which is too simple in its form for many people to grasp: that men are not angels. Thus we have government. Not that government is a replacement for angelic conduct, for angels successfully govern themselves without the imposition of government - a true republic - but the best government; even a man-made republic ["if you can keep it"], is a far superior form of the practice of government than any other. We still, 230 years later, are not angels, but that does not detract from the need to try. Socialism, by contrast, is a dance with the devil. 

On reflection, the Senate impeachment trial of Donald Trump ended as a farce worse than any Hollowood boxoffice bomb. Yet, it had its moments. Sidney Lumet, who I consider may have been the best screenwriter in Hollowood ever. However, even he may not have been capable of scripting this clown act. The plot featured a keystone cops' effort to determine adequate impeachable offenses from a Russian peddling scandal to a porn star's knickers, an Inspector Clouseau to a Ukrainian floor show. All this scripted by two clowns in two legs of a mother's bloomers who separately leaped together to the mic to present closing argument.
Hollowood, you have a new, farcical comedy to present to the Academy. It has Oscar in it's sights, let alone in a cameo role. His solid gold silence may make a better prosecution than sending in the clowns.

We have James Madison, who I revere more than just about any other founding father, to thank for establishing age as a qualifying factor for Congressional and presidential seats. The President was set at minimum 35, which, today, seems awfully young, and is. However, it was, coincidentally, Madison's age when he penned the Constitution. Illusions of grandeur? We'll never know, but a sobering thought: life expectancy in the late 18th century was just 37. our founding fathers gre to much older ages, even in their generation, because they were mostly affluent, well educated, and ate reasonable diets.

Are you satisfied by where GDP is right now? How well do you understand what it is, and what factors feed and grow it? Here's a quick primer: [1] Consumer spending, [2] business & individual investment, [3] government spending, and [4] a net plus export-to-import trade ratio. All contribute to GDP. And many of you have a problem with #3. #3 would be fine if #4 were truly a net plus, but our trade deficit [more import than export] has been a growing problem for 50 years, and it fights against government spending so that both result in depressing GDP. About time somebody, like Trump, did away with deficit export. That, alone, will help curtail deficit spending by the government. Trump has been trying to tell us that for 4 years: We need new trade deals. When are we going to get what he's doing and stop complaining that NAFTA, TPP, the Paris Accord, and the Iran Nuclear Deal were supposed to be good for trade? If they were, we'd have seen a far better GDP than we have for the last 40 to 50 years. Time to stop doing insanity, expecting the same results, and try Trump's way.

Re: Debate, I've not had the pleasure yet with either of you. looking forward to it.

Thanks for clarifying. I agree.

Strom. But, yeah, he let fly a windbag in excess of 24 hours. I heard one story that to solve the inevitable need to at least water the horses, his staff placed a bucket just outside the door to the Senate floor in the cloakroom so he could keep one foot on hte Senate floor while taking care of business. Shoofly should witness such a whirlwind of of commentary.

Religion has a rock-hard, practical foundation, such as "Do unto others..." [you know the rest], which is so concrete, it is shared by a least three dozen religious and secular organizations around the world. Speech is so concrete, we used it as one of the earliest communication techniques, by which 90% of civilization was dependent. A free press is so concrete, it crushes paper just to be newsworthy. A crowd gathered peaceably, even for protest, is seen, heard, touched, occasionally smelled, and sometimes even tasted. How much more concrete would you like it? Hell, that's just the 1A. 

A word about that 330M population of the US. That makes us the third most populated country in the world behind China and India. The countries that your dedicated teaching staff tell you are thriving on a similar health care system as you propose are in the 20, 30, 50M population arena. Fewer people; lower costs. That does not translate well to a country going on 10X of those populations. Do you really think that does not make a difference, both in direct medical costs and administrative costs on top of that?

Have a care, my friend, to understand that currently, more than 15% of the population of the US, a pop of 330M people, is 65 and older. Within ten years, that number is expected to rise to at least 20%.

I point out that group [my group!] because we have, most of us, a split of medicare and private insurance. I hear the constant din of argument that medicare [and SS] are examples of socialism. The only people who truly believe that are people who do not understand what FICA taxes are, even though they are obvious on every paystub produced by employers. I'll make it real simple for you. I know you're young. I worked a forty-year career. In all forty years, I paid FICA taxes, and also had the benefit of my employers paying into FICA. Those taxes were continuous installment payments into my SS and medicare funding. Before retiring, over 90% of FICA contributions paid for those retirement benefits. MY money, not yours or anybody else's. So, let's not raise that fallacy again.

Currently, I pay $137 monthly as added payment to Medicare. So do others [the actually value is different for individuals because of their relative variable career incomes. I'm near the top of the scale. My supplemental, by choice and need, is $0, but would be, if I paid, $25/mo.

Are you really trying to convince me that 20% of our population [about 60M, including me] will pay half of what we currently do when an added 250M of us [the working population] are suddenly separated from their current insurance plans? Not to mention that roughly 30M of that 250M, plus those who do not work, who do not currently have health insurance are part of that add? Lastly, you claim this will cost 50% less than the current private system? Who administrates this new deal government policy, and at what cost, who currently do not exist as such? Sock puppets?

Wow! That will require substantiation by more convincing than a sock puppet credential. Read James Madison. The rights of man are what define the parameters of the law. A good hard read of the Constitution ought to settle that score. Read the 9A and 10A; Madison's concluding thoughts regarding the Bill of Rights. It may take more reads as well. I read it fore to aft monthly, and I'm in it virtually daily, and have done so for at least ten ears, and I'm still scratching the surface of that most misunderstood of American documents. Read the four volumes of Madison's letters. You've got to want to do these things as if driven to madness without them. I can be a bloody search but well worth it.

You're going to have to do better than that. I did not concede that at all. Half of the chromosomes making the zygote are contributed by the woman. That does not change. Yes, it grows and develops entirely within her body, and it is genetically of her issue, plus the man's, but it is no more a part of her body than a ping pong ball is held in your hand. More to the point, if you did not continuously wash your hands, they would each collect an amalgam of various oils, sweat, and internal debris that is entirely of your production, like the zygote in a woman, but it is expelled, like the woman.  Is that such a hard concept to wrap around?

Relative to Civil Rights, Democrats love to claim as their schtick, but recall that in the 60s, the South was Democrat-controlled. If it wasn't for the majority of Repub support elsewhere, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 wold have failed. Dems do not like being reminded of that.

And when she has evolved a means to accomplish that without intervention by artificial means, then you have an argument. And, I also contend that the whole matter will need reevaluation just as soon as the fetus has adapted to present a successful rejection of abortion, naturally. What, then? Whose rights are whose?

That allows no consideration of the typical limit to rights, such as, mine end where your nose begins. Yes, yes, I know the arguments of the legal definition of human life, and that the law limits that definition to full birth. But, the law, at times, lags behind not just science, but ethics and common sense. After all, the law does not drive culture; it is the reverse.

Yes, I think I see how it's done, but I'll await your schedule. Meanwhile, busy is good.

Being a recent member of this enclave [abut a week], I have no knowledge of the history you describe, but, I have already had engagement with ethang5, both in agreement and disagreement. I've found his style inventive, probing, and direct. I have never been the target of his ire, and I suppose that is because I have not given cause, so it appears he is consistent with with how he is treated. Although I do not ascribe to that tactic, I cannot criticize hitting back when hit. So, this isn't a hit job on you, either. Congrats to both of you.

Well, as long as it's your clubhouse; your rules, yeah.

All good reasons, I concur. Fortunately, I have the pleasure of retirement, and I have completed the finishing of my basement as expanded residence, so time is not a limitation. Good luck on all those activities, the generous companion included.

Yeah, good debate topic. I accept. I'm new to this, but I believe a debate can be set up with a closed-invitation to a selected member, in this case, me. If so, I'm absolutely game. We are at odds, I think, on several subjects, but you have been considerate in your dealing with me, and I hope the feeling is mutual. So, as friends [though unofficial, but I will make that invite], or at least as amicable adversaries, because I believe in opposition in all things, let's proceed.

Did you mean to suggest I disagree with you? I entirely agree with you.

That is exactly my point. Healthcare [outcome-based] is a privilege, not a right.