"Atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method"
Sure, and I'm glad he admits human knowledge is limited, but there is a deeper problem: the Scientific Method itself is irrational. We have no compelling reason to believe that experimental results or mathematical models show how all of nature works and has always worked, for one would need an inductive proof, impossible except in some analytic mathematics (i.e., if F(n) true, then F(n+1) also is). Furthermore, samples always vary, which either means the theory is wrong, the equipment is flawed or noisy, or both. Massaging it with statistics amounts to Special Pleading.
All scientists can ever do is propose models of how nature works. If they are useful, well and good, but they can never be true.
One's view of children reveals basic beliefs. Those who believe in Original Sin think they're foolish and need to be straightened out, whereas Progressives think they're wonderful and basically innocent, as Pelagius taught, until "corrupted" by the adult world. In early America, this was repeated by Quakers, Unitarians, and others hostile to Biblical Christianity.
No wonder Pelosi wants younger voters, for she knows children, like criminals and other irresponsible fools, are natural Democrats.
What I dislike about smart phones and PCs is logistics: The "Upgrade Treadmill." After several years, one's device becomes obsolete and harder to maintain because hardware and software constantly change and they can't afford to keep regression testing apps against older systems. We found, for example, that some modern devices work only with smart phones newer than we own.
Result: hundreds of dollars for a new device of only marginally better utility. This is Planned Obsolescence with a vengeance. Same goes for increasingly computerized automobiles which become unusable at a much "younger" age once a critical part fails and costs more than the car is worth to replace.
Plus, all this compulsive computerization has resulted in a world where a crook in another hemisphere can mess up your life without warning.
Stewardship, anyone? All this ecological blather about Sustainability is risible in our culture which throws away people and things at an astonishing rate.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Neil, the flaws in Mr. Trump's personality should be obvious. His lack of veracity should be obvious to anyone no matter from what source he gets it from.
Finding fault with other people, especially politicians, is child's play, and a fun hobby for Christians and leftists alike. What politician in recent memory *has* been more truthful? Obama? Clinton? Pelosi? Your double-standard of discernment is obvious to anyone, and has been noted here countless times by others.
If the press were as critical of Democrats as they are of Trump, their credibility would improve.
The foreign press merely repeats American news sources, so their antipathy to Trump and Repubs is easy to explain.
Jim Lincoln wrote: ...Sadly, most of things said about him are true.
Say those who believe everything the leftist press tells them. Your habit of forwarding press articles absent critical analysis is revealing.
The Russian Collusion fairy tale is the biggest howler I've ever heard. It amazes me, actually, that despite the fanatical efforts of his numerous enemies, Trump came out as clean as he did in all these investigations. Being a loud-mouthed boor is not an impeachable offense.
My Own 2 cents wrote: What exactly do those verses have to do with data mining??
I wonder that too. Considering what a burden of student debt many have today, profitable ventures are commendable, however unorthodox the means here. Maybe someone isn't listening to their tenured Communist professors complain about Capitalism.
But pietists on both Right and Left love to insinuate that enterprising folks are greedy.
From what I understand, Shintoism, unlike Christianity and other Western belief systems, does not posit a significant distinction between the animate and inanimate. Therefore, man is nothing special.
This explains why Marie Kondo, a Japanese expert on home organizing (and a former temple maiden), may have good ideas, but also thinks we should offer thanks to household objects for "helping." If this isn't a 2nd Commandment problem, then I don't know what could be, Rom. 1:25.
"Social Justice" is a typically deceptive Marxist/Catholic euphemism for robbing the rich to "help" the poor. They get away with it because ever since the poor have been enfranchised, they have more votes, and have been taught not to be ashamed of taking Other People's Money. Theft is integral to Leftist ideology; in the Soviet Union, thieves were treated less harshly than political prisoners, and were allowed to harass the latter, because these reprobate bullies were deemed "socially friendly."
Behind this mindset, I suspect, Progressives resent God giving much to some folks, and little to others. No wonder Universalism and ecumenism are typical of Progressive "churches." It's not "fair" that the Biblical God saves only some people and not all, so they invent a new god more to their taste. Biblical Christianity is odious to them because it teaches contentment instead of resentment.
John D wrote: Steve Jobs pointed out that he dropped acid and look how that destroyed his life and career.
People tout Jobs as a success story, but by all accounts, the man was an nasty, abusive "son of a perverse, rebellious woman." Hardly consistent with the Zen Buddhism he espoused, but to be fair, I see a lot of such hypocrisy among Christians too. The more noise they make, the more wary I am of them.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: Well I certainly donâ€™t think it should be just enough to barely get by and Europe with all their issues is still an important allie[sic]. I doubt you, I, or the pundits have enough information to make a credible judgment
If no one has enough information to judge, then why did you post an opinion at all? That's incoherent.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: Neil and Phillip, I hope you do realize a strong military is the best way to maintain peace.
I expected such a response. But you beg a big question: how strong is strong enough? Do we need to spend more than the next seven nations *combined*? And I must ask, is Europe worth defending anymore when they open the door to their implacable enemies? A paradigm shift has occurred since the Cold War.
Phillip Mezzapelle wrote: There is no such thing as diplomacy and compromise with people like Bolton AND Pompeo.
The Nat'l Security state (in the manner of American big business) is manufacturing demand for its "services" by keeping its foreign "enemy list" full and pumping up the working class (what's left of them) with patriotic propaganda. I wonder how much all that advertising costs taxpayers? They've often contributed to Hollywood action flicks.
Democrats used to oppose Reagan's anti-Soviet defense spending, but because they're on the same philosophical "page" as Marxists, critics assumed it was sympathy with Communism. Now, they're both relentless hawks and brazen Socialists. Hilary Clinton is one of them.
I know of no credible mainstream lobby advocating we should roll back the Defense Dept. (Newspeak for War Dept.) to pre-WW2 proportions. And mind you, only the Army was seriously underfunded in the '30s, with few modern weapons.
An irony is, urban Jewish comedians have taught Americans to laugh at negative stereotypes about themselves: Jewish boys are supposed to be sex-obsessed, skeptical, babbling neurotics (Woody Allen, Jerry Seinfeld), girls are materialistic, shallow gossips (Joan Rivers' Jewish American Princess), and mothers overbearing and emotionally manipulative.
While these are better than more sinister traditional caricatures, which date back centuries, do they really want people assuming they're "all like that?" Aren't Jews among those constantly warning us against all forms of prejudice?
Jack Weir wrote: ... all the kids do martial arts because itâ€™s required in the school system.
So you're saying this isn't the usual misleading Hollywood stereotype, then? https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AllAsiansKnowMartialArts I think Hollywood has done more to promote ethnic stereotypes in America than any other single influence. And after making tons of money at it, they turn around and say it's wrong. Compare "Gone with the Wind" with "Driving Miss Daisy." Maybe David Selznick's estate should make reparations?
BTW I saw an old photo of Japanese schoolgirls training with swords back in 1938. So "Girls und Panzer" isn't such a strange story premise after all.
An early 20th-century Sears catalog offered opium and cocaine, among other drugs like patent medicines for "female complaints." I have to wonder how many folks got addicted back then, but no one was keeping nat'l statistics.
Scholar-official Lin Zexu's opposition to British selling opium in China instigated the First Opium War: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lin_Zexu