Qeresddfnm! Stuemely squidlerous publeling rt mcclerny z fidneys slunt.

Hey... Up yours too, buddy! ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Religion is one area beyond the ability of science to explain.

That is simply untrue. Religion is contained within our minds and is a product of the laws of physics. Although there may be some disagreement, depending on what sort of explanation you are looking for, there's no reason to suggest that anything is beyond the ability of the scientific method to explain.

Now, whether others will accept it, well, that's another story.

I beg to differ with you on this, but perhaps I should have stated this a bit more clearly.

Religion is one area beyond the ability of science to prove or disprove.

Under the scientific method, it is difficult to come up with a theory without the ability to perform repeatable experiments. And it is impossible for a theory to be considered scientifically valid unless it is falsifiable (able to be proven wrong). Just as one cannot scientifically prove that a Supreme Being exists, one also cannot scientifically prove that one doesn't.

About all that a scientist (or indeed anyone else) can do is to make a personal choice, based on evidence presented personally to themselves, whether or not to believe in a religion. Faith is belief in something that CANNOT be proven. Atheists have just as much Faith that there is not a higher power as the Religious have that there is. Science is not applicable to matters of Faith. Science does not invalidate Religion; neither does Religion invalidate Science. They are two separate paths, but one can walk both at the same time. After all, both head in the same direction: knowledge of the Truth.

I beg to differ with you on this, but perhaps I should have stated this a bit more clearly.

Religion is one area beyond the ability of science to prove or disprove.

Religion isn't. Religion exists as a set of ideas that can be tested. Do you mean some "god" here?

Under the scientific method, it is difficult to come up with a theory without the ability to perform repeatable experiments. And it is impossible for a theory to be considered scientifically valid unless it is falsifiable (able to be proven wrong). Just as one cannot scientifically prove that a Supreme Being exists, one also cannot scientifically prove that one doesn't.

To use a famous parable: "Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? ... Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder."

More specifically then: What's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating supreme being who makes no testable impact on this universe whatsoever and no supreme being at all? That someone has faith? Big deal.

About all that a scientist (or indeed anyone else) can do is to make a personal choice, based on evidence presented personally to themselves, whether or not to believe in a religion.

You're conflating the terms "religion" and "god" using them interchangeably.

Faith is belief in something that CANNOT be proven.

Right, that is the definition of faith. Belief in the Cookie Monster, belief in Indian Rope Climbers, belief in Ganesha, belief in God, it's all the same: of no objective value whatsoever. They believe because they want to.

Atheists have just as much Faith that there is not a higher power as the Religious have that there is.

No, the rational ones take the position that there is no evidence of a higher power. They don't simply have "faith" in that position, nor are they committed to that idea beyond what the evidence shows. If the Dragon shows up, they'd change their minds instantly, because they don't have any "faith" or allegiance to the idea itself. If they do, they have become religious, which means their "atheism" has no value either. Kinda like the truly faithful who will ALWAYS do ANYTHING to maintain their faith because that's all they've got. Without it, they have to admit that everything that the believed in was a giant error on their part.

Science is not applicable to matters of Faith. Science does not invalidate Religion; neither does Religion invalidate Science.

Why, because you said so? The scientific method actually does invalidate belief in supreme beings, because it forces those that believe to recognize the true nature of "faith"--something they believe because they want to. The invalidation occurs when the method occurs when the belief in the dragon and the belief in Ganesha are shown to be exactly the same: a pleasant picture of the universe that the holder wants to maintain.

This isn't to say they aren't entitled to faith: more power to them. They can have faith in anything they wish, and plenty of them do. But the individual ideas are indistinguishable.

I personally have faith in a giant chainsaw that runs the universe. I call him Holy Blessed Ernie. He's kinda stupid, I mean, he's a chainsaw and all, but he tries real hard and takes care to never emit too much C02 or cull too many people. I know he exists because I have faith he exists.

They are two separate paths, but one can walk both at the same time. After all, both head in the same direction: knowledge of the Truth.

No, only one does that. The other heads in a different direction because they already know The Truth, and nothing can shake them from that.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

The Net Authority

"The Net Authority is an organization dedicated to the removal of offensive material from the Internet. The online world is teeming with pornography, depravity, blasphemy, and all kinds of hate propaganda. It is our mission to define a set of guidelines to which all information posted on the Internet must adhere, and to hold responsible those who would knowingly break those guidelines."

"Internet Acceptable Use Policy

Posting information or content in any form on the Internet constitutes acceptance of and agreement to the Net Authority Internet Acceptable Use Policy.

1. Thou shalt not post pornographic material.

There is a common misconception that pornography is limited purely to images or textual descriptions of an explicit sexual nature. This is not the case. Anything that can evoke impure thoughts in the mind of the beholder is pornographic.
2. Thou shalt not post hateful material.

Any material that promotes or inspires hatred or violence towards any other person or group of people is strictly forbidden.
3. Thou shalt not post blasphemous material.

Any material that would lead one astray from the righteous path of the one true God must not be permitted on the Internet. These days children are gaining access to the Internet at younger and younger ages—a time when they are most vulnerable and susceptible to blasphemous viewpoints and suggestions.
4. Thou shalt not post materials of an offensive political nature.
5. Thou shalt not post materials concerning bestiality, including interracial relationships.

God did not intend for different species or races to intermingle sexually. Any content that contradicts this natural law, directly or indirectly, is strictly forbidden."

These people scare me.

---

Account frozen...

I personally have faith in a giant chainsaw that runs the universe.

If we all pray together, maybe it will run out of gas soon... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

If we all pray together, maybe it will run out of gas soon... ;)

Holy Blessed Ernie? Nah, he's omnipotent.

Orders his gas from Exxon.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

L.A. archdiocese to pay $660M for abuse

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070715/ap_on_re_us/church_abuse

By GILLIAN FLACCUS, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 9 minutes ago

LOS ANGELES - The nation's largest Catholic archdiocese has settled its abuse cases for $660 million, by far the largest payout in the church's sexual abuse scandal, The Associated Press has learned.
ADVERTISEMENT

The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles and the plaintiffs reached the deal Saturday, said Ray Boucher, the lead plaintiff's attorney. The archdiocese and the plaintiffs will release a statement Sunday morning and hold a news conference Monday, he said.

An anonymous source with knowledge of the deal placed its value at $660 million, by far the largest payout in the church's sexual abuse scandal. The source spoke on condition of anonymity because the settlement had not been officially announced.

The amount, which would average a little more than $1.3 million per plaintiff, exceeded earlier reports that the settlement would be between $600 million and $650 million.

Some Roman Catholic orders — the Servites, Claretians and Oblates — will be carved out of the agreement because they refused to participate, the source said. The settlement also calls for the release of confidential priest personnel files after review by a judge assigned to oversee the litigation, Boucher said.

The settlements push the total amount paid out by the U.S. church since 1950 to more than $2 billion, with about a quarter of that coming from the Los Angeles archdiocese.

It wasn't immediately clear how the payout would be split among the insurers, the archdiocese and several Roman Catholic religious orders. A judge must sign off on the agreement.

The release of the priest documents was important to the agreement, Boucher said, because it could reveal whether archdiocesan leaders were involved in covering up for abusive priests.

"Transparency is a critical part of this and of all resolutions," he said.

Tod Tamberg, a spokesman for the archdiocese, did not immediately return a call seeking comment late Saturday. Previously, he said the church would be in court on Monday.

Plaintiff Steven Sanchez, who was expected to testify in the first trial, said he was simultaneously relieved and disappointed. He sued the archdiocese claiming abuse by the late Rev. Clinton Hagenbach, who died in 1987.

"I was really emotionally ready to take on the archdiocese in court in less than 48 hours, but I'm glad all victims are going to be compensated," he said. "I hope all victims will find some type of healing in this process."

The settlement is the largest ever by a Roman Catholic diocese since the clergy sexual abuse scandal erupted in Boston in 2002. The largest payout so far has been by the Diocese of Orange, Calif., in 2004, for $100 million.

Facing a flood of abuse claims, five dioceses — Tucson, Ariz.; Spokane, Wash.; Portland, Ore.; Davenport, Iowa, and San Diego — sought bankruptcy protection.

The Los Angeles archdiocese, its insurers and various Roman Catholic orders have paid more than $114 million to settle 86 claims so far. The largest of those came in December, when the archdiocese reached a $60 million settlement with 45 people whose claims dated from before the mid-1950s and after 1987 — periods when it had little or no sexual abuse insurance.

Several religious orders in California have also reached multimillion-dollar settlements in recent months, including the Carmelites, the Franciscans and the Jesuits.

However, more than 500 other lawsuits against the archdiocese had remained unresolved despite years of legal wrangling. Most of the outstanding lawsuits were generated by a 2002 state law that revoked for one year the statute of limitations for reporting sexual abuse.

Cardinal Roger Mahony recently told parishioners in an open letter that the archdiocese was selling its high-rise administrative building and considering the sale of about 50 other nonessential church properties to raise funds for a settlement.

A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge overseeing the cases recently ruled that Mahony could be called to testify in the second trial on schedule, and attorneys for plaintiffs wanted to call him in many more.

The same judge also cleared the way for four people to seek punitive damages — something that could have opened the church to tens of millions of dollars in payouts if the ruling had been expanded to other cases.S. church since 1950 to more than $2 billion, with about a quarter of that coming from the Los Angeles archdiocese.

It wasn't immediately clear how the payout would be split among the insurers, the archdiocese and several Roman Catholic religious orders. A judge must sign off on the agreement.

The release of the priest documents was important to the agreement, Boucher said, because it could reveal whether archdiocesan leaders were involved in covering up for abusive priests.

"Transparency is a critical part of this and of all resolutions," he said.

Tod Tamberg, a spokesman for the archdiocese, did not immediately return a call seeking comment late Saturday. Previously, he said the church would be in court on Monday.

Plaintiff Steven Sanchez, who was expected to testify in the first trial, said he was simultaneously relieved and disappointed. He sued the archdiocese claiming abuse by the late Rev. Clinton Hagenbach, who died in 1987.

"I was really emotionally ready to take on the archdiocese in court in less than 48 hours, but I'm glad all victims are going to be compensated," he said. "I hope all victims will find some type of healing in this process."

The settlement is the largest ever by a Roman Catholic diocese since the clergy sexual abuse scandal erupted in Boston in 2002. The largest payout so far has been by the Diocese of Orange, Calif., in 2004, for $100 million.

Facing a flood of abuse claims, five dioceses — Tucson, Ariz.; Spokane, Wash.; Portland, Ore.; Davenport, Iowa, and San Diego — sought bankruptcy protection.

The Los Angeles archdiocese, its insurers and various Roman Catholic orders have paid more than $114 million to settle 86 claims so far. The largest of those came in December, when the archdiocese reached a $60 million settlement with 45 people whose claims dated from before the mid-1950s and after 1987 — periods when it had little or no sexual abuse insurance.

Several religious orders in California have also reached multimillion-dollar settlements in recent months, including the Carmelites, the Franciscans and the Jesuits.

However, more than 500 other lawsuits against the archdiocese had remained unresolved despite years of legal wrangling. Most of the outstanding lawsuits were generated by a 2002 state law that revoked for one year the statute of limitations for reporting sexual abuse.

Cardinal Roger Mahony recently told parishioners in an open letter that the archdiocese was selling its high-rise administrative building and considering the sale of about 50 other nonessential church properties to raise funds for a settlement.

A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge overseeing the cases recently ruled that Mahony could be called to testify in the second trial on schedule, and attorneys for plaintiffs wanted to call him in many more.

The same judge also cleared the way for four people to seek punitive damages — something that could have opened the church to tens of millions of dollars in payouts if the ruling had been expanded to other cases.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

wow i thought i posted my last post in the news thread.

thought i was going crazy looking for it.

sleeeeeeeppppp


Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

I asked God for something I thought absolutely, positively, impossible.

I received it.

I don't know who God is, who's right or wrong, what religion is true, or what life means, but I now firmly believe there is a God.

I also asked for an answer to a missing piece of a puzzle I've worked on for years.

I received that too.




.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

I asked God for something I thought absolutely, positively, impossible.

I received it.

I don't know who God is, who's right or wrong, what religion is true, or what life means, but I now firmly believe there is a God.

I also asked for an answer to a missing piece of a puzzle I've worked on for years.

I received that too.

.

I ask God for help too, but whether that help is granted or not has no effect on my belief. If I ask a bank for a loan and it is denied, I still believe in banks.

I ask God for help too, but whether that help is granted or not has no effect on my belief. If I ask a bank for a loan and it is denied, I still believe in banks.

Of course, there is objective evidence that banks exist. One need not have "faith" to convince themselves that Citibank does indeed make loans.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

I didn't ask Him/Her to find my car keys, if that's what your saying.




.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

I ask God for help too, but whether that help is granted or not has no effect on my belief. If I ask a bank for a loan and it is denied, I still believe in banks.

Of course, there is objective evidence that banks exist. One need not have "faith" to convince themselves that Citibank does indeed make loans.

You are focusing on the wrong part of my statement: I don't base my belief in God on evidence subject to different interpretation, such as, for example, whether or not he answers my prayers. My belief in God is based on my own analysis of evidence that satisfies me of God's existence--not exactly "faith" either. Regarding the second part of my statement, I should have stated more clearly that even if the bank denied my loan I would still "believe in (using) banks (to apply for loans)."

I have done so much research and have been on the edge for so long that I actually needed a sign, if you will. Probability and Statistics can not explain what happened to me. There is always the one in a billion chance of anything, but this was inexplicable. Random is random but wow this was huge.

I know that just because it has happened to me doesn't make it special or interesting. I know my vague comments here have not provided proof of anything. All I know is I now have faith and no one will be able to convince me to the contrary. Just me bearing my personal testimony.




.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

MrGray,
I have great respect for your belief and the way you gained that belief. I am only commenting that I reached that place by a different (not better) path.

I ask God for help too, but whether that help is granted or not has no effect on my belief. If I ask a bank for a loan and it is denied, I still believe in banks.

Of course, there is objective evidence that banks exist. One need not have "faith" to convince themselves that Citibank does indeed make loans.

You are focusing on the wrong part of my statement: I don't base my belief in God on evidence subject to different interpretation, such as, for example, whether or not he answers my prayers.

Right, but there are any number of sources of evidence that demonstrate that banks exist. That one of them doesn't come through, e.g., you didn't get a loan, but the physical structure is still there, or you still have an account there.

Gray's comment noted the paucity of objective evidence beyond the fulfillment of his request(a different discussion). Your parallel was not effective because there is plenty of objective evidence for a bank beyond it's granting of your loan.

My belief in God is based on my own analysis of evidence that satisfies me of God's existence--not exactly "faith" either.

Eh, that's pretty much exactly the definition of "faith." That answer holds water for the Dragon in my garage too.

Regarding the second part of my statement, I should have stated more clearly that even if the bank denied my loan I would still "believe in (using) banks (to apply for loans)."

That would have been far more accurate.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

My belief in God is based on my own analysis of evidence that satisfies me of God's existence--not exactly "faith" either.

Eh, that's pretty much exactly the definition of "faith." That answer holds water for the Dragon in my garage too.

Actually, faith is a belief that is held in the absence of evidence.

My belief in God is based on my own analysis of evidence that satisfies me of God's existence--not exactly "faith" either.

Eh, that's pretty much exactly the definition of "faith." That answer holds water for the Dragon in my garage too.

Actually, faith is a belief that is held in the absence of evidence.

Exactly my point.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Just me bearing my personal testimony.

The day God found me was the day my life was turned upside down and inside out...

People will put you to the test:

I Peter 4:4
They are surprised that you do not now join them in the same wild profligacy, and they abuse you;

God will put you to the test:

I Peter 4:12
Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal which comes upon you to prove you, as though something strange were happening to you.

If this is where you're at, be prepared... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Thanks, Qui-Gon,

And thanks Jeffrey.

I have plenty of faith that what happened had no business happening. Especially too me.

;)

MrGray,
I have great respect for your belief and the way you gained that belief. I am only commenting that I reached that place by a different (not better) path.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss